FAIR - User contributions [en]

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The First Vision

2012-12-13T12:01:07Z

MikeSantoy: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../|MormonThink]]
|author=Anonymous
|noauthor=
|section=The First Vision
|previous=[[../The Witnesses|The Witnesses]]
|next=[[../Polygamy|Polygamy]]
|notes=
}}
==A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "The First Vision"==

==== ====
{{Website response summary|date=7 May 2012}}

{{MormonThinkSummaryHeader|The First Vision}}
*That the First Vision "wasn't even known by church members until 1842," despite Joseph writing in his 1835 journal that he related the story to a man who happened to be visiting him, and despite a skeptical newspaper account describing how Mormon missionaries were teaching that Joseph had personally seen God in November of 1830.
*That local newspapers would have been interested enough in a 14-year-old's claim to have seen God to have published it.
*That earlier accounts of Joseph's vision written by Joseph himself are not "official," whatever that means.
*That Joseph's different accounts of the First Vision are "relatively ignored" by the Church, despite an [http://lds.org/study/topics/accounts-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng entire web page being devoted to them on lds.org] and various mentions in the ''Ensign'', including a [http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=66a205481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD statement by Gordon B. Hinckley].
*That Joseph embellished his vision story in 1838 to bolster his leadership during a time of apostasy, despite the fact that he told the same story to strangers visiting his house three years earlier in 1835.

==== ====
{{Website response label}}

==={{Subarticles label}}===

{{SummaryItem
|link=/Source quotes without commentary
|subject=Source quotes without critical commentary
|summary=If you would like to read all of the source quotes without wading through all of the "Critic's comments," "Apologetic rebuttals" and "Our Thoughts" sections, we present the critical web page as it would appear if ''only'' the source quotes were provided without any additional commentary. We also try to provide accurate references and direct links to the original source text rather than simply linking to other websites where you have to search for them.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The First Vision wasn't even known by church members until 1842, and even then it wasn't very important. Joseph said that he was persecuted for telling people that he had seen a vision. There is simply no evidence that Joseph told anyone about the vision until many years later and not until after the Book of Mormon was published. There are no accounts in the newspapers, by neighbors, preachers or even by the members of Joseph's own family. There is much evidence to indicate that the First Vision either never really happened or was very different than we've been taught.
|think=
* This is absurd. If no one knew about the vision "until 1842," why was a skeptical newspaper account describing how Mormon missionaries were teaching that Joseph had personally seen God in November of 1830? Not only had Church members heard that Joseph had seen God, but they were preaching it and a hostile press was ''writing about it.''
|quote=

*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).
*Report in a non-LDS newspaper that Mormon missionaries were teaching at least six of the beginning elements of the First Vision story (''Fredonia Censor'', vol. 11, no. 50, 7 March 1832).
* When the Rev. John A. Clark published his autobiography he mixed nine First Vision story elements together with the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and said that he learned them all in the Fall of 1827 from Martin Harris (John A. Clark, ''Gleanings by the Way'' [Philadelphia: W. J. and J. K. Simmon, 1842],---).

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|subject=No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|summary=Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time. Learn the facts here.
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No mention in non-LDS literature before 1843
|summary2=No mention of First Vision in non-LDS literature before 1843?
|subject2=No mention in non-LDS literature before 1843?|summary=There is no mention of the First Vision in non-Mormon literature before 1843. If the First Vision story had been known by the public before 1840 (when Orson Pratt published his pamphlet) the anti-Mormons “surely” would have seized upon it as an evidence of Joseph Smith’s imposture.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=James B. Allen, who served as assistant church historian, frankly admitted that the story of the first vision "was not given general circulation in the 1830's." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p.33). Dr. Allen makes some startling concessions in this article. He admits, for instance, 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...." Dr. Allen goes on to state that in the 1830's "the general membership of the Church knew little, if anything, about it."
|authorsources=
*Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, pages 29-45.
|think=
*That isn't exactly what James B. Allen said. He said that the story "at best" received "limited circulation."
<blockquote>
The fact that none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830s, 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.''' (emphasis added)
</blockquote>
* Why doesn't MormonThink quote any work done ''after'' 1966 on this point? Don't they realize that more documents or accounts may have been discovered?
|quote=

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/1830 statement about seeing "God"
|subject=Missionaries 1830 statement about Joseph seeing "God"
|summary=Critics have claimed that just because LDS missionaries were teaching around 1 November 1830 that Joseph Smith had previously seen “God” personally it cannot be assumed that this was a reference to God the Father since the Book of Mormon (completed ca. 11 June 1829) refers to Jesus Christ as “the eternal God” (title page; 2 Nephi 26:12). The argument is made that since this evidence indicates that Joseph Smith understood Jesus Christ to be “God” the statement by the missionaries may have simply meant that Joseph Smith had seen the Savior; not necessarily the Father.
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|subject2=No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|summary2=Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Why did Joseph Smith fail to mention his First Vision when he first wrote the church history in 1835? Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery wrote and published a history of the church that supposedly covered all of the important points related to its beginnings. However, Joseph Smith records a different story than the "official" one later published in 1842. In Joseph Smith's own 1835 published history of the church, he says that his first spiritual experience was in 1823 after a religious revival in Palmyra that same year.
|think=
*Because Oliver wrote the history, not Joseph. Oliver was writing at the request of WW Phelps, and responding as Phelps wrote him letters.
*Why doesn't MormonThink mention here that Joseph ''wrote an account of his First Vision in his journal in 1835''? Or an account in ''1832''? They quote a reference from the Tanner's which mentions it later on the webpage. Why not acknowledge it here?
*Did you know that Oliver wrote the two-part account of Joseph's vision as part of the Church history and not Joseph? Did you know that the first part published described exactly the conditions that led to the First Vision, including Joseph's age of 14, before describing the vision itself?
*Did you know that by the time that Oliver published the next part, that he said that he had made a mistake on the year, and changed it to '''three years later''' (age 14 to age 17) and then proceeded to describe Moroni's visit instead? Do you get the idea that Joseph told Oliver not to continue the first vision account that he had started to publish and to focus instead on Moroni's visit?
*Did you know that Oliver indicated that he had written records that he was using to create the history, and that those records likely included Joseph's 1832 journal account of the First Vision?
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts/Oliver Cowdery not aware of First Vision in 1834-35
|subject=Oliver Cowdery's 1834 account of the First Vision/Moroni's visit
|summary=Was Oliver Cowdery unaware of the First Vision as late as 1834–1835?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=[I]n the early 1800s having visions wasn't perceived to be all that uncommon. Even Joseph Smith's father claimed to have had a vision - namely the Tree of Life vision. People believed in magic, seer stones, divining rods, etc. and people claiming to have visions weren't seen as all that strange. Like much of Joseph's work, the first vision is strikingly similar to someone else's story.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
*Since visions were not uncommon, that kind of explains why Joseph didn't really mention it to many people, or why many people didn't pay much attention if he did.
*MormonThink can't have it both ways: it can't be both astonishing that no one remembered Joseph talking about his First Vision in early Palmyra, ''and'' that such things were regarded as common. They ''were'' seen as common (and somewhat disreputable) and so it is no surprise that no one local paid any attention to it at the time.
* Pastors of that day looked down on people who claimed to see God in a vision - such things were being discouraged.
*It was the vision of ''Moroni'' and the subsequent recovery and translation of the Book of Mormon that caused Joseph to realize that his path was different than others who had claimed to see visions. Therefore, Joseph emphasized that and only wrote the full account of his First Vision much later.
|quote=
* As Richard Bushman noted:
::The clergy of the mainline churches automatically suspected any visionary report, whatever its content...The only acceptable message from heaven was assurance of forgiveness and a promise of grace. Joseph's report of God's rejection of all creeds and churches would have sounded all too familiar to the Methodist evangelical, who repeated the conventional point that "all such things had ceased with the apostles and that there never would be any more of them."{{ref|bushman.41}}
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|subject=No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|summary=Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Since Joseph never told anyone about the vision, he wasn't persecuted. There is simply no evidence that he was ever persecuted for the First Vision....How strange that Joseph says that the neighborhood knew enough about it to persecute this obscure boy, but his own family hadn't heard about it at all. If Joseph's story had actually occurred and caused said excitement, someone would have mentioned it. No one did....God & Christ visit a young boy, and because of local gossip, he withheld that info from his family. And yet then he receives another visitation three years later from an angel, and immediately he tells his family? Why the inconsistencies?
|think=
*{{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
*Joseph never said that his vision caused "excitement." He described being persecuted for it:
:"Joseph did tell a Methodist preacher about the First Vision. Newly reborn people customarily talked over their experiences with a clergyman to test the validity of the conversion. The preacher's contempt shocked Joseph. Standing on the margins of the evangelical churches, Joseph may not have recognized the ill repute of visionaries. The preacher reacted quickly and negatively, '''not because of the strangeness of Joseph's story, but because of its familiarity'''. Subjects of revivals all too often claimed to have seen visions."{{ref|bushman.40.41}}
*MormonThink can't have it both ways: it can't be both astonishing that no one remembered Joseph talking about his First Vision in early Palmyra, ''and'' that such things were regarded as common (see above). They ''were'' seen as common (and somewhat disreputable) and so it is no surprise that no one local paid much attention to it at the time, other than to be scornful or dismissive if Joseph told them.
|quote=
* Joseph did not tell his family about Moroni until he was ''commanded'' to do so by the angel. Rather than being inconsistent, this reinforces the truthfulness of Joseph's account: he apparently wasn't inclined to tell everyone until he was directed to do so. Perhaps he had learned his lesson and was "once bitten, twice shy"?
* Why do you suppose MormonThink doesn't tell us this? It's right in Joseph's official history, and yet they act like his actions are completely mysterious. Do they not know the material at all, or are they hiding something intentionally?
: I shortly after arose from my bed, and, as usual, went to the necessary labors of the day; but, in attempting to work as at other times, I found my strength so exhausted as to render me entirely unable. My father, who was laboring along with me, discovered something to be wrong with me, and told me to go home. I started with the intention of going to the house; but, in attempting to cross the fence out of the field where we were, my strength entirely failed me, and I fell helpless on the ground, and for a time was quite unconscious of anything. The first thing that I can recollect was a voice speaking unto me, calling me by name. I looked up, and beheld the same messenger standing over my head, surrounded by light as before. He then again related unto me all that he had related to me the previous night, and commanded me to go to my father and tell him of the vision and commandments which I had received ([http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.48-49?lang=eng#47 Joseph Smith History 1:48-49]).

}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=If it really happened, why couldn't Joseph Smith tell a consistent story about such a powerful experience as meeting with God and Jesus Christ face-to-face?
How many people forget where they were when their first child was born? Or when they got their patriarchal blessing? Or their wedding night? How many forget who they were with and what happened? If we can remember details such as year, circumstance and those involved, why couldn't Joseph Smith consistently recall basic facts about his incredible First Vision?
|think=
*{{antispeak|mocking}} Note the characterization of Joseph's "powerful experience" and "incredible" First Vision.
*Joseph ''did'' remember consistently where he was and when it happened.
*How many of you forget the date of your anniversary? Or your dates of your kids' birthdays?
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=In Joseph Smith's first handwritten testimony of the first vision in 1832, he says he already knew all other churches were false before he prayed. Smith testified: "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."....Yet in the "official" story written years later by a scribe, it has Joseph Smith saying: "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."
|think=
*If you had come to the conclusion that mankind has apostatized from the true faith, and you suddenly found Jesus standing in front of you, wouldn't ''you'' ask Him if any of those churches was the correct one? Or would you simply tell Him, "never mind, I already figured it out for myself?"
*Besides, where is the inconsistency? How many churches did Joseph have immediate knowledge of? Three or four? Joseph determined that the churches with which he had direct experience did not adhere to the scriptures and that therefore mankind "had apostatized from the true and living faith." During his vision, he then asked the Lord which church was right, because it had not occurred to him that the Lord's church ''didn't exist anywhere on the face of the earth.'' It had never entered into his heart that ''all'' churches were wrong.
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Contradiction about knowing all churches were wrong
|subject=Contradiction about knowing all churches were wrong
|summary=In his 1832 account of the First Vision, Joseph Smith said, “I found [by searching the scriptures] 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.” But in the 1835 account he said, “I knew not who [of the denominations] was right or who was wrong.” Critics claim that thus counts as evidence that the First Vision story evolved over time.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are earlier versions of the First Vision story in Joseph Smith's own handwriting, but they are not considered "official" and are relatively ignored by the church. 
One thing is clear, the LDS Church does a great disservice to investigators of its claims by presenting Joseph Smith's 1838 account of his first vision as the only version of these events.
 
UPDATE:
From the church's official web site, there is an article that gives the church's point of view on why there are multiple accounts of the First Vision.

|think=
*{{Antispeak|doesn't count}} No, it isn't clear at all: Where does the Church claim that the 1838 account is the "only version" of these events?
*Oh wait....there's an "update" all the way near the bottom of the article. Why not just update the information being shown instead of stating things at the beginning of the article that are not true, then providing a small "update" at the end of the article that corrects it?
*Did you mean to say that these accounts are "relatively ignored" ''except'' when they are ''mentioned in the ''Ensign'' and on the official Church website lds.org''?
|quote=
<blockquote>
During a 10-year period (1832–42), Joseph Smith wrote or dictated at least four accounts of the First Vision. These accounts are similar in many ways, but they include some differences in emphasis and detail. These differences are complementary. Together, his accounts provide a more complete record of what occurred. The 1838 account found in the Pearl of Great Price is the primary source referred to in the Church. 
—[http://lds.org/study/topics/accounts-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng ''Accounts of the First Vision''], Gospel Study, Study by Topic, located on lds.org. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his sacred experience of 1820. Possibly he penned or dictated other histories of the First Vision; if so, they have not been located. 
—Milton Backman Jr., "[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision]," ''Ensign'', January 1985.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration.''
 
—Dennis B. Neuenschwander, “[http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=aec2515e04f5e110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ],” Ensign, Jan 2009, 16–22.
 
I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life. 
—Gordon B. Hinckley, [http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=66a205481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “‘God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear’,] ''Ensign'', Oct 1984, 2
</blockquote>
* There is also a ''massive'' list of statements available. How can MormonThink ignore ''all'' these?
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1910-1968)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1910-1968)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1910-1968)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1969-1978)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1969-1978)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1969-1978)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1979-1983)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1979-1983)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1979-1983)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1984-1989)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1984-1989)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1984-1989)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1990-1997)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1990-1997)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1990-1997)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1998-2003)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1998-2003)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1998-2003)
}}
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Oliver Cowdery's account in the 1834 "Messenger and Advocate" stated that the "first vision" occurred in 1823---not a word about an 1820 vision. Cowdery's account also related that Smith's interest in religion was sparked by the preaching of Methodist elder George Lane, rather than Smith's version which claimed that he was inspired by reading in the Bible at 14. Cowdery also stated that the date of the "religious excitement in Palmyra and vicinity" was in Smith's "17th year," which would have been 1823, rather than 1820.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
* MormonThink has not taken a close enough look at the available documents to understand the true nature of the criticism which they advocate.
* Oliver Cowdery did, in fact, know about the First Vision when he recorded his version of the history of the Restoration—he had physical possession of the Prophet's 1832 history.
* Cowdery's dating anomaly and confused reporting of facts likely occurred because the Prophet was extremely busy during this time period and did not have much of a chance for editorial oversight (Cowdery, in fact, was the editor).
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts/Oliver Cowdery not aware of First Vision in 1834-35
|subject=Oliver Cowdery's 1834 account of the First Vision/Moroni's visit
|summary=Was Oliver Cowdery unaware of the First Vision as late as 1834–1835?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are other contradictions which cast doubt on the "first vision," such as the Smith family joining the Presbyterian church AFTER God has supposedly told Joseph that all churches were corrupt
|think=

* This claim is false. The "Smith family" did not join the Presbyterian church; Joseph's mother and a few siblings did. Lucy discusses another group to which she was attracted after the First Vision. She and much of the family was inclined thereto: Joseph was not, and ''he'' was the one told not to join any of them.
|quote=
* Lucy Mack Smith even reports what Joseph told her:

<blockquote>Shortly after the death of Alvin, '''a man commenced labouring in the neigbourhood, to effect a union of the different churches'' [note that this is not the Presbyterians], in order that all might be agreed, and thus worship God with one heart and with one mind. 

This scented about right to me, and I felt much inclined to join in with them; in fact, the most of the family appeared quite disposed to unite with their numbers; but Joseph, from the first, utterly refused even to attend their meetings, saying, "Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to meeting, or any of the rest of the family's; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods, and learn more in two hours, than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time." 

To gratify me, my husband attended some two or three meetings, but peremptorily refused going any more, either for my gratification, or any other person's. 

[p.91] During this excitement, Joseph would say, it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long, for we were mistaken in them, and did not know the wickedness of their hearts.{{ref|lucy.90.91}} {{ea}}</blockquote>

* Lucy and some siblings were Presbyterian members, but this was likely ''prior'' to Joseph's First Vision:{{ref|lucy.74}}
:[48] [Prior to Joseph Smith Sr. losing his farm in Vermont around 1802] I heard that a very devout man was to preach the next Sabbath in the Presbyterian Church; I therefore went to meeting, in the full expectation of hearing that which my soul desired—the Word of Life. When the minister commenced speaking, I fixed my mind with deep attention upon the spirit and matter of his discourse; but, after hearing him through, I returned home, convinced that he neither understood nor appreciated the subject upon which he spoke, and I said in my heart that there was not then upon earth the religion which I sought. I therefore determined to examine my Bible, and, taking Jesus and his disciples for my guide, to endeavour to obtain from God that which man could neither give nor take away. Notwithstanding this, I would hear all that could be said, as well as read much that was written, on the subject of religion; but the Bible I intended should be my guide to life and salvation. This course I pursued a number of years. At length I considered it my duty to be baptized, and, finding a minister who was willing to baptize me, and leave me free in regard to joining any religious denomination, I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance; after [p.49] which I continued to read the Bible as formerly, until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year....{{ref|lucy.48}}
* MormonThink is confusing the two time frames. They do not understand the documents well at all. Why not?
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|subject=Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|summary=Critics claim that since there was a religious revival in Palmyra, New York in 1824-25 which appears to match details of Joseph Smith's official Church history, he must have mistakenly mixed this event in with his narrative about what happened in 1820, and that the Prophet's mother joined the Presbyterian church after Alvin Smith died in late 1823. This contradicts Joseph's statement that she joined in 1820, thereby dating Joseph's First Vision to no earlier than 1823.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Cowdery's statement that Smith had wondered, several years after the alleged "first vision," as to whether "a Supreme Being did exist";
|think=
* This sentence does not say that Joseph Smith was trying to find out if there was a God.
* Joseph was seeking for:
# a full manifestation of divine "approbation" [or acceptance in the eyes of God, not in a God he doesn't already believe in] and
# for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist [a parenthetical aside rather than a question Joseph was asking], to have an assurance that he was accepted of [H]im [Joseph was seeking reassurance as to his own standing with God]."
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823
|subject=Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823?
|summary=Critics claim that according to a historical document published in Kirtland, Ohio in 1835 the Prophet Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in the year 1823. This text, therefore, provides evidence that Joseph Smith simply made up the story about the First Vision happening in the year 1820. But, this misunderstands both the statement and the historical chronology.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=and the fact that as late as 1851, church publications such as the "Times and Seasons" were calling the angel that visited Joseph "Nephi," rather than Moroni.
|think=
*Did you know that the first anti-Mormon book, ''Mormonism Unvailed'', published in '''1834''', referred to the angel as "Moroni?"
*Did you know that the reference to the angel as "Nephi" depended upon a single error that was copied?
|quote=
* ''Mormonism Unvailed'' - 1834, reprinted as ''History of Mormonism'' in 1840 [an anti-Mormon book]
<blockquote>
After he had finished translating the Book of Mormon, he again buried up the plates in the side of a mountain, by command of the Lord; some time after this, he was going through a piece of woods, on a by-path, when he discovered an old man dressed in ordinary grey apparel...The Lord told him that the man he saw was MORONI, with the plates, and if he had given him the five coppers, he might have got his plates again. (emphasis in original)
</blockquote>
* There are [[Moroni's_visit/Nephi_or_Moroni#Sources_which_mention_Moroni|many other early sources]] that use the correct name of "Moroni". Why doesn't MormonThink tell us about them?

|link=Moroni's visit/Nephi or Moroni
|subject=Nephi or Moroni
|summary=The Church teaches that Moroni was the heavenly messenger which appeared to Joseph Smith and directed him to the gold plates. Yet, some Church sources give the identity of this messenger as Nephi. Critics claim that this shows that Joseph was 'making it up as he went along.' In fact, a single misprint was reprinted a few times. But, earliest sources (even hostile ones) give the name as "Moroni".
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=A young Joseph, an amazing vision, the birth of Mormonism - it all started with a great revival. Joseph Smith gave a vivid description of the revival that took place in his boyhood town of Palmyra, New York....This revival made a big impression on Joseph Smith, but what kind of mark did it leave in history? Could we pinpoint the place and date of this event and verify that it really happened? Would church records for the years immediately before and after a revival, show a sudden jump in church memberships telling us exactly when this took place? What if we found the actual records but there was no evidence of a revival?
|think=
*{{Antispeak|beg the question}}
* Where's the "vivid description" that MormonThink talks about? Joseph hardly ''describes'' the religious excitement at all, he merely says that it was there and that it made a large impression on him.
* MormonThink is begging the question: they are assuming what they want to prove. They are calling these events "a revival," when Joseph never called them by that term.
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious revivals in 1820
|subject=Were there revivals in 1820?
|summary=Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it"
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Methodist camp meetings
|subject2=Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area
|summary2=Critics claim that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Multiple sources revealed evidence of a great religious excitement, with big gains in church membership for all the denominations mentioned by Joseph. But, instead of the revival beginning in 1820, it started in the autumn of 1824 and continued into the spring of 1825.
|think=
* This is irrelevant. There was a revival in 1824-25, but there was also religious excitement and camp meetings in the correct time and place for Joseph's account.
*MormonThink is relying upon an old and discredited chronology popular with anti-Mormon sources.
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious revivals in 1820
|subject=Were there revivals in 1820?
|summary=Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it"
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Methodist camp meetings
|subject2=Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area
|summary2=Critics claim that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The second detail was Joseph Smith's statement that the revival took place "sometime in the second year after our removal to Manchester" (PGP/JS History 1:5). Research into existing tax records and property assessments indicate the most likely date for the Smith family's move onto their Manchester farm is 1822. A revival occurring in the second year after 1822 fits the 1824 revival date (Inventing, pp. 7-8).
|think=
* MormonThink is here citing a well-known anti-Mormon work, {{CriticalWork:Marquardt Walters:Inventing Mormonism|pages=7-8}}
* The U.S. Census Bureau listed the Smiths in Farmington (now Manchester) in 1820. The Smith farm, clearing the land and a log house, all supported evidence that the Smiths, and most everyone else, considered themselves in Manchester, even though they technically lived about 59 feet off their property (in Palmyra). Legal U.S. documents now considered the Smiths in Farmington (later called Manchester) even though, technically, the log house was 59 feet away on the Palmyra side of the line.
* MormonThink is not up to date, and is not citing all the documents. Why do you suppose that is?
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Smith family place of residence in 1820
|subject=Smith family place of residence in 1820
|summary=Critics claim that there are discrepancies in Joseph's account of his family's early history, which make his 1820 and subsequent revelations impossible, and that there is no evidence that the Smith family was in the Palmyra area in 1820 for the religious excitement and First Vision which Joseph reported.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=FAIR believes that there was some sort of revival in 1820. I guess it depends on how you define a revival. Some believe that an ad in the newspaper for a church camp meeting is a revival. The revival Joseph seems to be referring to that sparked his quest is more like the big revivals that started in 1824 where membership jumped dramatically.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|beg the question}}
*No, FAIR does ''not'' believe that there was some sort of revival in 1820. FAIR states, based upon newspaper data, that there were Methodist camp meetings being held in the Palmyra area. FAIR never states that there was a "revival." MormonThink has locked onto the idea of a "revival," despite the fact the Joseph himself never called the "excitement" a revival.
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious revivals in 1820
|subject=Were there revivals in 1820?
|summary=Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it"
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Methodist camp meetings
|subject2=Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area
|summary2=Critics claim that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Hyrum, Samuel, Katherine, and Joseph's mother, Lucy, became members of the Presbyterian church after one of these revivals but his father would not join because of some feelings engendered at Alvin's funeral. Thus, by implication, these family members joined near the time of Alvin's death [in November 1823]. Lucy Smith, in her account, indicated that she and several of her family became interested in joining with a church shortly after Alvin's death. This would indicate that they probably joined the Presbyterian church early in 1824.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
* This claim is false. The "Smith family" did not join the Presbyterian church; Joseph's mother and a few siblings did. Lucy discusses another group to which she was attracted after the First Vision. She and much of the family was inclined thereto: Joseph was not.
|quote=
* Lucy Mack Smith even reports what Joseph told her:

<blockquote>Shortly after the death of Alvin, '''a man commenced labouring in the neigbourhood, to effect a union of the different churches'' [note that this is not the Presbyterians], in order that all might be agreed, and thus worship God with one heart and with one mind. 

This scented about right to me, and I felt much inclined to join in with them; in fact, the most of the family appeared quite disposed to unite with their numbers; but Joseph, from the first, utterly refused even to attend their meetings, saying, "Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to meeting, or any of the rest of the family's; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods, and learn more in two hours, than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time." 

To gratify me, my husband attended some two or three meetings, but peremptorily refused going any more, either for my gratification, or any other person's. 

[p.91] During this excitement, Joseph would say, it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long, for we were mistaken in them, and did not know the wickedness of their hearts.{{ref|lucy.90.91b}} {{ea}}</blockquote>

* Lucy and some siblings were Presbyterian members, but this was ''prior'' to Joseph's First Vision:{{ref|lucy.74b}}
:[48] [Prior to Joseph Smith Sr. losing his farm in Vermont around 1802] I heard that a very devout man was to preach the next Sabbath in the Presbyterian Church; I therefore went to meeting, in the full expectation of hearing that which my soul desired—the Word of Life. When the minister commenced speaking, I fixed my mind with deep attention upon the spirit and matter of his discourse; but, after hearing him through, I returned home, convinced that he neither understood nor appreciated the subject upon which he spoke, and I said in my heart that there was not then upon earth the religion which I sought. I therefore determined to examine my Bible, and, taking Jesus and his disciples for my guide, to endeavour to obtain from God that which man could neither give nor take away. Notwithstanding this, I would hear all that could be said, as well as read much that was written, on the subject of religion; but the Bible I intended should be my guide to life and salvation. This course I pursued a number of years. At length I considered it my duty to be baptized, and, finding a minister who was willing to baptize me, and leave me free in regard to joining any religious denomination, I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance; after [p.49] which I continued to read the Bible as formerly, until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year....{{ref|lucy.48b}}
* MormonThink is confusing the two. They do not understand the documents well at all. Why not?
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|subject=Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|summary=Critics claim that since there was a religious revival in Palmyra, New York in 1824-25 which appears to match details of Joseph Smith's official Church history, he must have mistakenly mixed this event in with his narrative about what happened in 1820, and that the Prophet's mother joined the Presbyterian church after Alvin Smith died in late 1823. This contradicts Joseph's statement that she joined in 1820, thereby dating Joseph's First Vision to no earlier than 1823.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=In the first history of Mormonism from 1835 written under Joseph Smith's direction, it says that the night of September 1823 Joseph Smith began praying in his bed to learn "the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him." (LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Feb. 1835) How could that possibly make sense if Smith had already seen God face-to-face some three years earlier in 1820?
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
* This source does not say that Joseph Smith was trying to find out if there was a God.
* Joseph was seeking for:
# a full manifestation of divine "approbation" [or acceptance in the eyes of God, not in a God he doesn't already believe in] and
# for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist [a parenthetical aside rather than a question Joseph was asking], to have an assurance that he was accepted of [H]im [Joseph was seeking reassurance as to his own standing with God]."
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823
|subject=Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823?
|summary=Critics claim that according to a historical document published in Kirtland, Ohio in 1835 the Prophet Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in the year 1823. This text, therefore, provides evidence that Joseph Smith simply made up the story about the First Vision happening in the year 1820.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Records show that in June of 1828, Joseph Smith applied for membership in his wife's Methodist Church. He also joined Methodist classes taught there. (The Amboy Journal, Amboy, IL, details Smith's activity in the Methodist Church in 1828. April 30, 1879 p. 1; May 21, 1879 p.1; June 11, 1879, p.1; July 2, 1879 p.1.)
|think=
* The "records" are a late recollection by Hiel and Joseph Lewis; they do not say that Joseph "applied for membership." These are not church records (as one might assume from MormonThink's description) but a hostile recollection from some cousins of Emma Smith long after the fact.
* They say that the Methodist minister inscribed Joseph's name in the class book, and when the "official members" found out about this, they made certain that any association with Joseph was quickly severed.
* Did you know that Methodists required people to be investigators ("probationers") for at least six months prior to becoming members? How did Joseph Smith manage to do this in three days (which is how long the sources used by MormonThink says his name was in the class book)?
* Why doesn't MormonThink even mention [[Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches#Sources_which_contradict_the_critics|these sources]]?
|link=Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches/Methodist_membership_procedures_and_Joseph_Smith
|subject=Do Hiel and Jospeh Lewis' account match with claims that Joseph was a member of the Methodists?
|summary=A review of the requirements of Methodist membership (at least six months probation), the necessity of baptism, and rules about how lapsed members were to be handled all make the claim that Joseph was a Methodist implausible.
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith joined other churches
|subject2=Did Joseph join other churches contrary to commandment in vision?
|summary2=Critics charge that Joseph Smith joined the Methodist, Presbyterian, or Baptist churches between 1820 and 1830—despite the claim made in his 1838 history that he was forbidden by Deity (during the 1820 First Vision experience) from joining any denomination. Unfortunately for the critics, these late sources are contradicted by multiple sources that are much closer in time to the period in question.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Numerous changes to the first edition of the Book of Mormon were made for its 2nd edition.... of the nearly 4,000 alterations, some of them had to do with Joseph's evolving belief about the nature of God. Notice how these verses changed from indicating that Jesus was God the Father to Jesus being the Son of God.
|think=
* The addition of "the Son of" to four passages in 1 Nephi does not change the Book of Mormon's teaching that Jesus Christ is the God of Old Testament Israel. This concept is taught in more than a dozen other passages whose readings remain unchanged from the original manuscripts. For example:
|quote=
**"And ''the God of our fathers'', who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, ''the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'', yieldeth himself...as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up...and to be crucified...and to be buried in a sepulchre...." ({{scripture|1|Nephi|19|10}})
**"...he said unto them that ''Christ was the God, the Father of all things'', and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that ''God should come down'' among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth." ({{scripture||Mosiah|7|27}})
**"Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, ''who is the very Eternal Father''." ({{scripture||Mosiah|16|15}})
**"Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: ''Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?'' And Amulek said unto him: Yea, ''he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth'', and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last." ({{scripture||Alma|11|38-39}})
* There are many, many other examples: {{scripture|2|Nephi|25|12}}; {{scripture||Mosiah|3|8}}; {{scripture||Mosiah|13|28,33-34}}; {{scripture||Mosiah|15|1}}; {{scripture||Helaman|8|22-23}}; {{scripture||Helaman|14|12}}; {{scripture||Helaman|16|18}}; {{scripture|3|Nephi|11|10,14}}; {{scripture||Mormon|9|12}}; {{scripture||Ether|3|14}}; {{scripture||Ether|4|7}}; {{scripture||Ether|4|12}}.)
* It is simply illogical to conclude that Joseph Smith changed the four passages in 1 Nephi to conform to his supposed changing theological beliefs, but somehow forgot to change all the others.
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"the Son of"
|subject="the Son of" added to 1 Nephi 11:18, 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32, and 1 Nephi 13:40
|summary=Critics charge that the earliest edition of the Book of Mormon referred to Jesus as "God," but in later editions this was changed to "the Son of God." They cite this as evidence that Joseph Smith changed the Book of Mormon to conform to his changing beliefs about the Trinity. They claim Joseph was originally a solid Trinitarian (perhaps even a Modalist), and as he later began to teach that the Father and Son were two separate beings, he had to change the Book of Mormon to support his new doctrine.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Numerous changes to the first edition of the Book of Mormon were made for its 2nd edition. '''LDS leaders would have you believe it is all punctuation and grammar corrections but''' of the nearly 4,000 alterations, some of them had to do with Joseph's evolving belief about the nature of God. {{ea}}
|think=
*{{Antispeak|liars}}
* If "LDS leaders" are trying to get members to believe that all the Book of Mormon changes were "punctuation and grammar corrections," why do they publish statements like the following in the ''Ensign''?
<blockquote>"In a few places, however, Joseph Smith did intentionally add to the text to clarify a point. An illustration of this is the added words the son of in 1 Nephi 11:21, 32, and 13:40. The text would be correct with or without the additional words, but the addition helps the reader avoid misunderstanding." - {{Ensign|author=George Horton|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/12/understanding-textual-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon]|date=December 1983}}</blockquote>

|quote=
* "Some have alleged that these books of revelation are false, and they place in evidence changes that have occurred in the texts of these scriptures since their original publication. They cite these changes, of which there are many examples, as though they themselves were announcing revelation. As though they were the only ones that knew of them. Of course there have been changes and corrections. Anyone who has done even limited research knows that. When properly reviewed, such corrections become a testimony for, not against, the truth of the books....Now, I add with emphasis that such changes have been basically minor refinements in grammar, expression, punctuation, clarification. Nothing fundamental has been altered. Why are they not spoken of over the pulpit? Simply because by comparison they are so insignificant, and unimportant as literally to be not worth talking about. After all, they have absolutely nothing to do with whether the books are true." -{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1974/04/we-believe-all-that-god-has-revealed We Believe All That God Has Revealed]|date=May 1974|pages=94}}
* Once again, the crafty LDS leaders are hiding matters by publishing them in the official magazine, and then sending a copy to each home.
* Other Church-produced or -published sources include:
** "Intentional additions to improve clarity: The most dramatic instance of clarifying a text is found at 1 Nephi 11:18, 21, 32 and 13:40, where the words "the son of" have been added before the names God and "the Eternal Father." Joseph Smith personally made these corrections in the 1837 edition. Given the fact that these texts are clearly talking about Jesus, the Son of God, the addition of "the son of" was appropriate to give additional clarity for the reader." - {{Book:Cheesman:Keystone Scripture|pages=249|author=George A. Horton, Jr.|article=Book of Mormon—Transmission from Translator to Printed Text}}
**{{CTBoM1_1}}
**{{CTBoM21_1}}
**{{CTBoM22_1}}

|link=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"the Son of"
|subject="the Son of" added to 1 Nephi 11:18, 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32, and 1 Nephi 13:40
|summary=Critics charge that the earliest edition of the Book of Mormon referred to Jesus as "God," but in later editions this was changed to "the Son of God." They cite this as evidence that Joseph Smith changed the Book of Mormon to conform to his changing beliefs about the Trinity. They claim Joseph was originally a solid Trinitarian (perhaps even a Modalist), and as he later began to teach that the Father and Son were two separate beings, he had to change the Book of Mormon to support his new doctrine.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Originally the Doctrine and Covenants contained the Lectures on Faith, accepted as doctrine by Joseph Smith in 1835. The Fifth Lecture on Faith (I think these lectures were actually part of the D & C until the church removed them in 1920) specifically states that the Father is a spirit, that only Jesus has a body, and that the Holy Ghost is the Mind of the Father and the Son. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon promoted this as doctrine in 1835. Yet the whole foundation of the church rests on the reality of the 1820 first vision that proves a different Godhead.
|think=
*There is no documentary evidence that indicates exactly when Joseph Smith learned that God the Father had a glorified and perfected body of flesh and bone. And, despite our typical assumptions, there is also no indication that Joseph learned any such thing during his 1820 First Vision.
*Regardless of when this revelation was bestowed upon the Prophet, it cannot be established beyond doubt that he was responsible for the teaching about the "spirit" nature of God found in the main text of lecture #5. It may, instead, be true that the Prophet was involved in adjusting the lecture #5 text to conform with his earlier work on the translation of the Bible.
|quote=
|response=
|link=First Vision/The Father as Spirit vs. Embodied
|subject=Is the Father embodied or a spirit?
|summary=When the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was published in 1835 it portrayed God the Father as a personage of spirit whereas Jesus Christ was portrayed as a personage of tabernacle, or one having a physical body. Yet the official LDS First Vision story portrays the Father as a physical Being. Critics claim that this is evidence of an evolution of story; and that the evolution of this story is evidence of fraud.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Another potential evidence that Joseph Smith did not see the Father and the Son in 1820, to those who believe in the restoration of the Priesthood, is the fact that in the year 1832 Joseph Smith claimed to have a revelation which stated that a man could not see God without the Priesthood. This revelation is published as Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants.
|think=
*When D&C 84:21-22 is analyzed in context then an interpretation emerges that does not support the one proposed by the Prophet's critics. The relevant words read:
<blockquote>
[19] "And this greater [i.e., Melchizedek] priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. [20] Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, '''the power of godliness''' is manifest. [21] And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, '''the power of godliness''' is not manifest unto men in the flesh; [22] For without '''this''' no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."
</blockquote>
*The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness."{{ref|robinson1}} One of the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood is the bestowal of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (see {{s||DC|49|14}}). As the Lord explained in an 1831 revelation, "no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God" ({{s||DC|67|11}}).
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Doctrine and Covenants 84 says God not seen without priesthood
|subject=D&C:84 says God cannot be seen without priesthood
|summary=Critics argue that Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God in 1820 and also claimed that he received the priesthood in 1829. But in a text which he produced in 1832 ({{S||DC|84|21-22}}) it is said that a person cannot see God without holding the priesthood. Therefore, critics claim that Joseph Smith contradicted himself and this counts as evidence against his calling as an authentic prophet of God.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=It appears that The only thing Joseph Smith said that was perhaps really unique was that God the Father had a body of "flesh and bone". But who can say if he is correct or not?
Even if Joseph was the first person to propose something, it is very flawed logic to assume what he proposed is true or that he is a prophet for proposing it - especially when it can't be proven one way or another.

|think=
*Well, the interesting thing is that Joseph never said anything about the personages having "flesh and bone" in his accounts of his vision. That teaching came later.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Also, Joseph is often credited with being the first person to claim that there are three degrees of glory (which no one knows is right or wrong anyway). But this concept has also been around a long time. In 1784, Emanuel Swedenborg wrote a book called Heaven and Hell and Its Wonders about his visions of the afterlife. Swedenborg insisted: "There are three heavens," described as "entirely distinct from each other." He called the highest heaven "the Celestial Kingdom," and stated that the inhabitants of the three heavens corresponded to the "sun, moon and stars."
|think=
*Swedenborg was hardly the first theologian or thinker to suggest that heavenly rewards were not all identical, but graduated into degrees of glory. The discussion and debate about the fate of the righteous in heaven goes back to the earliest Christian centuries.
*The charge that Swedenborg was Joseph's source was not even mentioned by those who disliked both Joseph and Swedenborg, and knew both works. Elements in Joseph's schema are present in the Bible, but not present in Swedenborg's model. The claim of "similarity" rests on a few superficial similarities between Joseph and Swedenborg and the Bible—and ignores the many marked differences between them.
*Even if one is not inclined to grant Joseph Smith prophetic status, it seems far more plausible that his view of a three-tiered heaven derives from the New Testament, and not from Swedenborg.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Plan of salvation/Three degrees of glory/Swedenborg
|subject=Swedenborg
|summary=Critics claim that Joseph Smith derived the idea of "three degrees of glory" in the afterlife from Emanuel Swedenborg's book, ''Heaven and its Wonders and Hell From Things Heard and Seen'' (1758). Critics also claim that Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage was similar to Swedenborg's philosophy of "spiritual wifery."
*You can read the source here: [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Heaven_And_Hell ''Heaven and Hell or, Heaven and its Wonders and Hell''] (1905) by Emanuel Swedenborg, translated by John C. Ager
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The different versions of the First Vision. The following is as close to an official response from the LDS Church that we could find: Ensign Article See the January 1985 issue of The Ensign on the church's web site. The site does not allow a direct link to the article. You'll have to use the index, just cut and paste the following into your web browser: http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm Church Publications/Magazines/Ensign/1985/January
Joseph Smith's Recitals of the First Vision by Milton V. Backman, Jr.
|think=
*This is bizarre: You mean it doesn't allow ''this'' direct link?
<blockquote>
Milton Backman Jr., "[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision]," ''Ensign'', January 1985.
</blockquote>
*We found this by searching lds.org just like for any other article.
*Try Googling "Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision"—that ''also'' brings up a direct link to the article on lds.org as the first Google search result.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=It is obvious by the above statements by church leaders that the First Vision did not happen in the way the Church portrays. The church would have you believe that Joseph had the vision in 1820 and that it has always been the central part of the LDS faith. In fact the one, simple, plain truth that every member that joined the church should have known is that God the Father and Jesus Christ were separate beings. We take this for granted now but this wasn't firmly established until over 15 years after the event supposedly occurred.
|think=
* The separate nature of God and Christ was apparent from the very earliest LDS documents, such as the Book of Mormon.
* MormonThink plays a good trick the numbers--note that it is "over 15 years after the event supposedly occurred." Since the vision was in 1820 and the Church wasn't organized until 1830, ten of the fifteen years had already passed. Were future Mormons supposed to be learning Joseph's theology before he had even founded a church? So, MormonThink has already admitted that this was unmistakeable within 5 years of the Church's establishment.
* But, the earliest documents go back even further than that.
|quote=

* In 1829, the Book of Mormon was translated:

:The Book of Mormon also begins (1 Nephi 1:8-10) with Lehi's vision of God on his throne. One [Christ] followed by twelve others descends from God to speak with Lehi--thus, Jesus and the Father are here both separate, and the role of Christ in giving instructions to the prophet while the Father looks on and approves is followed, just as it was in Joseph's First Vision. Here too, Lehi is described as praying to "the Lord," and yet has a vision of both God the Father and Christ.

* Between June and October 1830, Joseph had dictated his revision (the "Joseph Smith Translation") to Genesis. Joseph's rendered {{s||Genesis|1|26|27}} as:

:And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so....And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. ({{s||Moses|2|26-27}}.)

* There can be no doubt that Joseph understood "in mine own image" to refer to a physical likeness, rather than merely a moral or intellectual one. The JST of {{s||Genesis|5|1-2}} reads

:In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; ''in the image of his own body'', male and female, created he them ({{s||Moses|6|8-9}}, emphasis added)

*Thus, by 1830 Joseph's revelations were clearly teaching a separation of the Father and Son, and insisting that both had some type of physical form which could be copied in the creation of humanity. (It is not clear, however, whether he understood the physical nature of the Father's body at this early date. He still, however, taught that [[Joseph Smith's First Vision/The Father as Spirit vs. Embodied|the Father was a distinct personage]] and entity with form that could be seen.)

* Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, also noted that other Christian denominations took issue with the new Church because of its teachings about God, noting that in 1830:

:the different denominations are very much opposed to us.... the Methodists also come, and they rage, for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle.{{ref|lucy.mack.smith.145}}

* All this is less than a year from the Church's organization. Some members may have not internalized these ideas, or may have been slow to abandon ideas about God rooted in two millennia of Christian history, but MormonThink's claim simply does not match the earliest documents.

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith's early conception of God
|subject=Joseph Smith's early conception of God
|summary=Critics claim that Joseph Smith initially taught standard Nicene trinitarianism. The early documents tell a different story, however.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Joseph recounted how the visitation of the angel Moroni happened on September 21, 1823. An interesting question - how is it that JS could remember the precise date of the angel's visit in 1823, but could not remember the precise date of God's appearance to him in 1820?
|think=
*Because he was 14 years old. He probably didn't even know the date.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=We can accept that Joseph wanted to fellowship with other believers in Christ even if he didn't believe their doctrine. So we don't have a problem if Joseph merely attended an occasional Methodist church service. Most of us involved with MormonThink don't think that this particular problem with the First Vision is as serious as some critics claim. However we are somewhat disturbed if he actually tried to officially join the Methodist Church as God specifically told him not to....Joseph was welcomed, not persecuted by the Methodists.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
*{{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
MormonThink has above quoted the ''Amboy Journal'' of 1879 in an attempt to prove that Joseph joined the Methodists in 1828. Why do they not report what the Methodists did to Joseph within ''three days'' of him attending?
|quote=
:...while he, Smith, was in Harmony, Pa., translating his book....that he joined the M[ethodist] [Episocpal] church. He presented himself in a very serious and humble manner, and the minister, not suspecting evil, put his name on the class book, the absence of some of the official members, among whom was the undersigned, Joseph Lewis, who, when he learned what was done, took with him Joshua McKune, and had a talk with Smith. They told him plainly that such a character as he was a disgrace to the church, that he could not be a member of the church unless he broke off his sins by repentance, made public confession, renounced his fraudulent and hypocritical practices, and gave some evidence that he intended to reform and conduct himself somewhat nearer like a christian than he had done. They gave him his choice, to go before the class, and publicly ask to have his name stricken from the class book, or stand a disciplinary investigation. He chose the former, and immediately withdrew his name. So his name as a member of the class was on the book only three days.--It was the general opinion that his only object in joining the church was to bolster up his reputation and gain the sympathy and help of christians; that is, putting on the cloak of religion to serve the devil in.{{ref|lewis.1}}

* Given that Lewis says he arranged Joseph's ouster from the group within three days as soon as he heard of it, and that most people assumed Joseph was only trying to "build his reputation," to "serve the devil in," despite coming "in a very serious and humble manner" this does not sound at all like he was "welcomed...by the Methodists."
* And, remember that this late recollection is the ''only'' mention of Joseph being a Methodist at all. [[Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches#Sources_which_contradict_the_critics|Several sources]] that are much earlier (from both friendly and hostile witnesses) assert that Joseph never joined a church.

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Persecution after the vision
|subject=Persecution after the vision?
|summary=Some claim that there is no evidence that Joseph or his family were persecuted because of the First Vision. They argue that this means that Joseph invented the story later.
|link2=Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches/Methodist_membership_procedures_and_Joseph_Smith
|subject2=Do Hiel and Jospeh Lewis' account match with claims that Joseph was a member of the Methodists?
|summary2=A review of the requirements of Methodist membership (at least six months probation), the necessity of baptism, and rules about how lapsed members were to be handled all make the claim that Joseph was a Methodist implausible.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=How do we know that it wasn't Satan (if he exists) that appeared to Joseph? Please read this insightful essay to see how Satan can appear as a Heavenly Being as described by Joseph Smith.
|think=
* {{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/brainvat/#H5''How do we know that we are not brains in a vat, wired to a computer?'']
*The editors at MormonThink have spent a considerable amount of effort demonstrating the God really doesn't exist, but just to make sure every base is covered, they are going to suggest that it might have been ''Satan'' that appeared? If, of course, he exists. Any source will do as long as it leads to a disbelief in the Church, is that it?
* MormonThink has spent a great deal of time claiming that Joseph deceived people; now they want to turn around and claim he ''did'' see a vision, but it was satanic?
|quote=
|link=Moroni's visit/Angel of Satan
|subject=Moroni as an "angel of Satan"
|summary=Some critics have charged that Moroni, the resurrected prophet who gave the Book of Mormon plates to Joseph Smith, was really an angel of Satan.
|link2=Holy Ghost/Revelation from God or the devil
|subject2=Revelation from God or the devil
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=One of the best summaries and perhaps most plausible explanations for the various issues surrounding Joseph's First Vision, can be found in the last chapter of LDS Church Education System teacher Grant Palmer's book An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. After presenting an impressive series of well-documented arguments against the traditional version we've all been taught in the church, the author proposes a very plausible explanation: "After a mass exodus of high-ranking church leaders including several apostles, all three special witnesses of the BOM and three of the eight witnesses to the BOM, Joseph took to reestablishing his authority. He made many changes to the church including changing the name of the church. He began by attacking those who were circulating unsavory "reports" regarding "the rise and progress of the Church", then told a revised and more impressive version of his epiphany.
|think=
* MormonThink describes Palmer as an "LDS Church Education System teacher." Palmer was disfellowshipped and then left the Church. Why doesn't MormonThink tell us that?
*This argument is a reference to the Kirtland crisis of 1837–38. Warren Parrish was considered by some of the Saints to be the ringleader of the Kirtland crisis. It is, therefore, all the more interesting that it was this same Warren Parrish who acted as scribe in recording a First Vision recital given by the Prophet Joseph Smith on 9 November 1835. When Parrish's 1835 account of the theophany is compared to the 1838 account it becomes glaringly obvious that the story did not change over time, as the critics would like everyone to believe.
*But, Joseph didn't just write the experience down in 1835, ''he was telling other people about it.'' This had nothing to do with "reestablishing his authority" three years later.
*Why is Palmer the first person to figure this out? If apostles and the Book of Mormon witnesses were at odds with Joseph, surely they knew what story Joseph had been telling them all along? They were very close to him from the beginning, especially people like Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer. Why did ''none'' of these men notice what Palmer wants us to accept? Why did none of them say, "Hey, Joseph, you're changing your story?" Quite simply because he didn't, and so it didn't even occur to them. Otherwise, they'd have been quick to point it out.
|quote=
*From Joseph's journal:
<blockquote>
14 November 1835 • Saturday 
A Gentleman called this after noon by the name of Erastus Holmes of Newbury Clemon [Newberry, Clermont] Co. Ohio, he called to make enquiry about the establishment of the church of the latter-day Saints and to be instructed more perfectly in our doctrine &c I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old and also the visitations that I received afterward, concerning the book of Mormon, and a short account of the rise and progress of the church, up to this, date he listened verry attentively and seemed highly gratified, and intends to unite with the Church he is a verry candid man indeed and I am much pleased with him.
</blockquote>
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts/1838/Account modified to offset leadership crisis
|subject=1838 account modified to offset leadership crisis?
|summary=Critics claim that in 1838 Joseph Smith revised his personal history to say that his original call came from God the Father and Jesus Christ rather than an angel. His motive for doing this was to give himself a stronger leadership role because an authority crisis had recently taken place and large-scale apostasy was the result.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Now whenever we go out with missionaries (some of us actually still do that) as they teach the First Vision, it makes us wonder what really happened to Joseph? Did he see God the Father and Jesus or just Jesus or just angels and which of the many reported circumstances surrounding the First Vision actually occurred?
|think=
*We don't think that MormonThink's webmaster goes out with the missionaries any more.
*None of Joseph's accounts state that he saw ''just'' angels. One account states that in addition to the two personages, that he saw "many angels."
|quote=
*From Joseph's journal dated 9 November, 1835:
<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.
</blockquote>
*Then, just five days later on 14 November, 1835, Joseph wrote the following in his journal:
<blockquote>
I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old.
</blockquote>
*It is unlikely Joseph changed his story between the 9th and 14th of November. It is obvious that he interchangeably used the word "Angels" (Note the capitalization) and "personages."
*You may read the primary source here: [[Primary sources/Joseph Smith, Jr./First Vision accounts/1835]]
*Once again, no one in Joseph's day called him on the obvious "contradiction" that MormonThink wants us to accept. Why not? There was no contradiction to notice.
}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|bushman.41}}{{Book:Bushman:Rough Stone Rolling|pages=41}}
#{{note|bushman.40.41}}{{Book:Bushman:Rough Stone Rolling:Short|pages=40-41}}
#{{note|lucy.90.91}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors|pages=90-91}}
#{{note|lucy.74}} Note that Lucy quotes Joseph's report that his mother and four siblings were members of the Presbyterian faith prior to his vision in {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=74}}
#{{note|lucy.48}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=48}}
#{{note|lucy.90.91b}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=90-91}}
#{{note|lucy.74b}} Note that Lucy quotes Joseph's report that his mother and four siblings were members of the Presbyterian faith prior to his vision in {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=74}}
#{{note|lucy.48b}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=48}}
#{{note|robinson1}} "...godliness can be permanently, individually attained only through the ordinances of the holy priesthood. Nevertheless, 'godliness' or being like God can be attained temporarily in another way - by transfiguration. If the Holy Ghost enters into our physical bodies, so that for a moment we become one with the Spirit, then have been thus 'transfigured' to godliness, we are able to see the face of God and live." {{Book:Robinson Garret:Commentary on the D&C:3|pages=32-33}}
#{{note|lucy.mack.smith.145}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=145}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The First Vision

2012-12-13T10:08:36Z

MikeSantoy:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../|MormonThink]]
|author=Anonymous
|noauthor=
|section=The First Vision
|previous=[[../The Witnesses|The Witnesses]]
|next=[[../Polygamy|Polygamy]]
|notes=
}}
==A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "The First Vision"==

==== ====
{{Website response summary|date=7 May 2012}}

{{MormonThinkSummaryHeader|The First Vision}}
*That the First Vision "wasn't even known by church members until 1842," despite Joseph writing in his 1835 journal that he related the story to a man who happened to be visiting him, and despite a skeptical newspaper account describing how Mormon missionaries were teaching that Joseph had personally seen God in November of 1830.
*That local newspapers would have been interested enough in a 14-year-old's claim to have seen God to have published it.
*That earlier accounts of Joseph's vision written by Joseph himself are not "official," whatever that means.
*That Joseph's different accounts of the First Vision are "relatively ignored" by the Church, despite an [http://lds.org/study/topics/accounts-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng entire web page being devoted to them on lds.org] and various mentions in the ''Ensign'', including a [http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=66a205481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD statement by Gordon B. Hinckley].
*That Joseph embellished his vision story in 1838 to bolster his leadership during a time of apostasy, despite the fact that he told the same story to strangers visiting his house three years earlier in 1835.

==== ====
{{Website response label}}

==={{Subarticles label}}===

{{SummaryItem
|link=/Source quotes without commentary
|subject=Source quotes without critical commentary
|summary=If you would like to read all of the source quotes without wading through all of the "Critic's comments," "Apologetic rebuttals" and "Our Thoughts" sections, we present the critical web page as it would appear if ''only'' the source quotes were provided without any additional commentary. We also try to provide accurate references and direct links to the original source text rather than simply linking to other websites where you have to search for them.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The First Vision wasn't even known by church members until 1842, and even then it wasn't very important. Joseph said that he was persecuted for telling people that he had seen a vision. There is simply no evidence that Joseph told anyone about the vision until many years later and not until after the Book of Mormon was published. There are no accounts in the newspapers, by neighbors, preachers or even by the members of Joseph's own family. There is much evidence to indicate that the First Vision either never really happened or was very different than we've been taught.
|think=
* This is absurd. If no one knew about the vision "until 1842," why was a skeptical newspaper account describing how Mormon missionaries were teaching that Joseph had personally seen God in November of 1830? Not only had Church members heard that Joseph had seen God, but they were preaching it and a hostile press was ''writing about it.''
|quote=

*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).
*Report in a non-LDS newspaper that Mormon missionaries were teaching at least six of the beginning elements of the First Vision story (''Fredonia Censor'', vol. 11, no. 50, 7 March 1832).
* When the Rev. John A. Clark published his autobiography he mixed nine First Vision story elements together with the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and said that he learned them all in the Fall of 1827 from Martin Harris (John A. Clark, ''Gleanings by the Way'' [Philadelphia: W. J. and J. K. Simmon, 1842],---).

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|subject=No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|summary=Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time. Learn the facts here.
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No mention in non-LDS literature before 1843
|summary2=No mention of First Vision in non-LDS literature before 1843?
|subject2=No mention in non-LDS literature before 1843?|summary=There is no mention of the First Vision in non-Mormon literature before 1843. If the First Vision story had been known by the public before 1840 (when Orson Pratt published his pamphlet) the anti-Mormons “surely” would have seized upon it as an evidence of Joseph Smith’s imposture.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=James B. Allen, who served as assistant church historian, frankly admitted that the story of the first vision "was not given general circulation in the 1830's." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p.33). Dr. Allen makes some startling concessions in this article. He admits, for instance, 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...." Dr. Allen goes on to state that in the 1830's "the general membership of the Church knew little, if anything, about it."
|authorsources=
*Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, pages 29-45.
|think=
*That isn't exactly what James B. Allen said. He said that the story "at best" received "limited circulation."
<blockquote>
The fact that none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830s, 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.''' (emphasis added)
</blockquote>
* Why doesn't MormonThink quote any work done ''after'' 1966 on this point? Don't they realize that more documents or accounts may have been discovered?
|quote=

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/1830 statement about seeing "God"
|subject=Missionaries 1830 statement about Joseph seeing "God"
|summary=Critics have claimed that just because LDS missionaries were teaching around 1 November 1830 that Joseph Smith had previously seen “God” personally it cannot be assumed that this was a reference to God the Father since the Book of Mormon (completed ca. 11 June 1829) refers to Jesus Christ as “the eternal God” (title page; 2 Nephi 26:12). The argument is made that since this evidence indicates that Joseph Smith understood Jesus Christ to be “God” the statement by the missionaries may have simply meant that Joseph Smith had seen the Savior; not necessarily the Father.
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|subject2=No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|summary2=Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Why did Joseph Smith fail to mention his First Vision when he first wrote the church history in 1835? Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery wrote and published a history of the church that supposedly covered all of the important points related to its beginnings. However, Joseph Smith records a different story than the "official" one later published in 1842. In Joseph Smith's own 1835 published history of the church, he says that his first spiritual experience was in 1823 after a religious revival in Palmyra that same year.
|think=
*Because Oliver wrote the history, not Joseph. Oliver was writing at the request of WW Phelps, and responding as Phelps wrote him letters.
*Why doesn't MormonThink mention here that Joseph ''wrote an account of his First Vision in his journal in 1835''? Or an account in ''1832''? They quote a reference from the Tanner's which mentions it later on the webpage. Why not acknowledge it here?
*Did you know that Oliver wrote the two-part account of Joseph's vision as part of the Church history and not Joseph? Did you know that the first part published described exactly the conditions that led to the First Vision, including Joseph's age of 14, before describing the vision itself?
*Did you know that by the time that Oliver published the next part, that he said that he had made a mistake on the year, and changed it to '''three years later''' (age 14 to age 17) and then proceeded to describe Moroni's visit instead? Do you get the idea that Joseph told Oliver not to continue the first vision account that he had started to publish and to focus instead on Moroni's visit?
*Did you know that Oliver indicated that he had written records that he was using to create the history, and that those records likely included Joseph's 1832 journal account of the First Vision?
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts/Oliver Cowdery not aware of First Vision in 1834-35
|subject=Oliver Cowdery's 1834 account of the First Vision/Moroni's visit
|summary=Was Oliver Cowdery unaware of the First Vision as late as 1834–1835?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=[I]n the early 1800s having visions wasn't perceived to be all that uncommon. Even Joseph Smith's father claimed to have had a vision - namely the Tree of Life vision. People believed in magic, seer stones, divining rods, etc. and people claiming to have visions weren't seen as all that strange. Like much of Joseph's work, the first vision is strikingly similar to someone else's story.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
*Since visions were not uncommon, that kind of explains why Joseph didn't really mention it to many people, or why many people didn't pay much attention if he did.
*MormonThink can't have it both ways: it can't be both astonishing that no one remembered Joseph talking about his First Vision in early Palmyra, ''and'' that such things were regarded as common. They ''were'' seen as common (and somewhat disreputable) and so it is no surprise that no one local paid any attention to it at the time.
* Pastors of that day looked down on people who claimed to see God in a vision - such things were being discouraged.
*It was the vision of ''Moroni'' and the subsequent recovery and translation of the Book of Mormon that caused Joseph to realize that his path was different than others who had claimed to see visions. Therefore, Joseph emphasized that and only wrote the full account of his First Vision much later.
|quote=
* As Richard Bushman noted:
::The clergy of the mainline churches automatically suspected any visionary report, whatever its content...The only acceptable message from heaven was assurance of forgiveness and a promise of grace. Joseph's report of God's rejection of all creeds and churches would have sounded all too familiar to the Methodist evangelical, who repeated the conventional point that "all such things had ceased with the apostles and that there never would be any more of them."{{ref|bushman.41}}
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|subject=No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|summary=Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Since Joseph never told anyone about the vision, he wasn't persecuted. There is simply no evidence that he was ever persecuted for the First Vision....How strange that Joseph says that the neighborhood knew enough about it to persecute this obscure boy, but his own family hadn't heard about it at all. If Joseph's story had actually occurred and caused said excitement, someone would have mentioned it. No one did....God & Christ visit a young boy, and because of local gossip, he withheld that info from his family. And yet then he receives another visitation three years later from an angel, and immediately he tells his family? Why the inconsistencies?
|think=
*{{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
*Joseph never said that his vision caused "excitement." He described being persecuted for it:
:"Joseph did tell a Methodist preacher about the First Vision. Newly reborn people customarily talked over their experiences with a clergyman to test the validity of the conversion. The preacher's contempt shocked Joseph. Standing on the margins of the evangelical churches, Joseph may not have recognized the ill repute of visionaries. The preacher reacted quickly and negatively, '''not because of the strangeness of Joseph's story, but because of its familiarity'''. Subjects of revivals all too often claimed to have seen visions."{{ref|bushman.40.41}}
*MormonThink can't have it both ways: it can't be both astonishing that no one remembered Joseph talking about his First Vision in early Palmyra, ''and'' that such things were regarded as common (see above). They ''were'' seen as common (and somewhat disreputable) and so it is no surprise that no one local paid much attention to it at the time, other than to be scornful or dismissive if Joseph told them.
|quote=
* Joseph did not tell his family about Moroni until he was ''commanded'' to do so by the angel. Rather than being inconsistent, this reinforces the truthfulness of Joseph's account: he apparently wasn't inclined to tell everyone until he was directed to do so. Perhaps he had learned his lesson and was "once bitten, twice shy"?
* Why do you suppose MormonThink doesn't tell us this? It's right in Joseph's official history, and yet they act like his actions are completely mysterious. Do they not know the material at all, or are they hiding something intentionally?
: I shortly after arose from my bed, and, as usual, went to the necessary labors of the day; but, in attempting to work as at other times, I found my strength so exhausted as to render me entirely unable. My father, who was laboring along with me, discovered something to be wrong with me, and told me to go home. I started with the intention of going to the house; but, in attempting to cross the fence out of the field where we were, my strength entirely failed me, and I fell helpless on the ground, and for a time was quite unconscious of anything. The first thing that I can recollect was a voice speaking unto me, calling me by name. I looked up, and beheld the same messenger standing over my head, surrounded by light as before. He then again related unto me all that he had related to me the previous night, and commanded me to go to my father and tell him of the vision and commandments which I had received ([http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.48-49?lang=eng#47 Joseph Smith History 1:48-49]).

}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=If it really happened, why couldn't Joseph Smith tell a consistent story about such a powerful experience as meeting with God and Jesus Christ face-to-face?
How many people forget where they were when their first child was born? Or when they got their patriarchal blessing? Or their wedding night? How many forget who they were with and what happened? If we can remember details such as year, circumstance and those involved, why couldn't Joseph Smith consistently recall basic facts about his incredible First Vision?
|think=
*{{antispeak|mocking}} Note the characterization of Joseph's "powerful experience" and "incredible" First Vision.
*Joseph ''did'' remember consistently where he was and when it happened.
*How many of you forget the date of your anniversary? Or your dates of your kids' birthdays?
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=In Joseph Smith's first handwritten testimony of the first vision in 1832, he says he already knew all other churches were false before he prayed. Smith testified: "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."....Yet in the "official" story written years later by a scribe, it has Joseph Smith saying: "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."
|think=
*If you had come to the conclusion that mankind has apostatized from the true faith, and you suddenly found Jesus standing in front of you, wouldn't ''you'' ask Him if any of those churches was the correct one? Or would you simply tell Him, "never mind, I already figured it out for myself?"
*Besides, where is the inconsistency? How many churches did Joseph have immediate knowledge of? Three or four? Joseph determined that the churches with which he had direct experience did not adhere to the scriptures and that therefore mankind "had apostatized from the true and living faith." During his vision, he then asked the Lord which church was right, because it had not occurred to him that the Lord's church ''didn't exist anywhere on the face of the earth.'' It had never entered into his heart that ''all'' churches were wrong.
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Contradiction about knowing all churches were wrong
|subject=Contradiction about knowing all churches were wrong
|summary=In his 1832 account of the First Vision, Joseph Smith said, “I found [by searching the scriptures] 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.” But in the 1835 account he said, “I knew not who [of the denominations] was right or who was wrong.” Critics claim that thus counts as evidence that the First Vision story evolved over time.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are earlier versions of the First Vision story in Joseph Smith's own handwriting, but they are not considered "official" and are relatively ignored by the church. 
One thing is clear, the LDS Church does a great disservice to investigators of its claims by presenting Joseph Smith's 1838 account of his first vision as the only version of these events.
 
UPDATE:
From the church's official web site, there is an article that gives the church's point of view on why there are multiple accounts of the First Vision.

|think=
*{{Antispeak|doesn't count}} No, it isn't clear at all: Where does the Church claim that the 1838 account is the "only version" of these events?
*Oh wait....there's an "update" all the way near the bottom of the article. Why not just update the information being shown instead of stating things at the beginning of the article that are not true, then providing a small "update" at the end of the article that corrects it?
*Did you mean to say that these accounts are "relatively ignored" ''except'' when they are ''mentioned in the ''Ensign'' and on the official Church website lds.org''?
|quote=
<blockquote>
During a 10-year period (1832–42), Joseph Smith wrote or dictated at least four accounts of the First Vision. These accounts are similar in many ways, but they include some differences in emphasis and detail. These differences are complementary. Together, his accounts provide a more complete record of what occurred. The 1838 account found in the Pearl of Great Price is the primary source referred to in the Church. 
—[http://lds.org/study/topics/accounts-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng ''Accounts of the First Vision''], Gospel Study, Study by Topic, located on lds.org. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his sacred experience of 1820. Possibly he penned or dictated other histories of the First Vision; if so, they have not been located. 
—Milton Backman Jr., "[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision]," ''Ensign'', January 1985.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration.''
 
—Dennis B. Neuenschwander, “[http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=aec2515e04f5e110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ],” Ensign, Jan 2009, 16–22.
 
I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life. 
—Gordon B. Hinckley, [http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=66a205481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “‘God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear’,] ''Ensign'', Oct 1984, 2
</blockquote>
* There is also a ''massive'' list of statements available. How can MormonThink ignore ''all'' these?
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1910-1968)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1910-1968)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1910-1968)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1969-1978)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1969-1978)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1969-1978)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1979-1983)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1979-1983)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1979-1983)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1984-1989)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1984-1989)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1984-1989)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1990-1997)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1990-1997)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1990-1997)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1998-2003)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1998-2003)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1998-2003)
}}
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Oliver Cowdery's account in the 1834 "Messenger and Advocate" stated that the "first vision" occurred in 1823---not a word about an 1820 vision. Cowdery's account also related that Smith's interest in religion was sparked by the preaching of Methodist elder George Lane, rather than Smith's version which claimed that he was inspired by reading in the Bible at 14. Cowdery also stated that the date of the "religious excitement in Palmyra and vicinity" was in Smith's "17th year," which would have been 1823, rather than 1820.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
* MormonThink has not taken a close enough look at the available documents to understand the true nature of the criticism which they advocate.
* Oliver Cowdery did, in fact, know about the First Vision when he recorded his version of the history of the Restoration—he had physical possession of the Prophet's 1832 history.
* Cowdery's dating anomaly and confused reporting of facts likely occurred because the Prophet was extremely busy during this time period and did not have much of a chance for editorial oversight (Cowdery, in fact, was the editor).
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts/Oliver Cowdery not aware of First Vision in 1834-35
|subject=Oliver Cowdery's 1834 account of the First Vision/Moroni's visit
|summary=Was Oliver Cowdery unaware of the First Vision as late as 1834–1835?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are other contradictions which cast doubt on the "first vision," such as the Smith family joining the Presbyterian church AFTER God has supposedly told Joseph that all churches were corrupt
|think=

* This claim is false. The "Smith family" did not join the Presbyterian church; Joseph's mother and a few siblings did. Lucy discusses another group to which she was attracted after the First Vision. She and much of the family was inclined thereto: Joseph was not, and ''he'' was the one told not to join any of them.
|quote=
* Lucy Mack Smith even reports what Joseph told her:

<blockquote>Shortly after the death of Alvin, '''a man commenced labouring in the neigbourhood, to effect a union of the different churches'' [note that this is not the Presbyterians], in order that all might be agreed, and thus worship God with one heart and with one mind. 

This scented about right to me, and I felt much inclined to join in with them; in fact, the most of the family appeared quite disposed to unite with their numbers; but Joseph, from the first, utterly refused even to attend their meetings, saying, "Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to meeting, or any of the rest of the family's; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods, and learn more in two hours, than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time." 

To gratify me, my husband attended some two or three meetings, but peremptorily refused going any more, either for my gratification, or any other person's. 

[p.91] During this excitement, Joseph would say, it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long, for we were mistaken in them, and did not know the wickedness of their hearts.{{ref|lucy.90.91}} {{ea}}</blockquote>

* Lucy and some siblings were Presbyterian members, but this was likely ''prior'' to Joseph's First Vision:{{ref|lucy.74}}
:[48] [Prior to Joseph Smith Sr. losing his farm in Vermont around 1802] I heard that a very devout man was to preach the next Sabbath in the Presbyterian Church; I therefore went to meeting, in the full expectation of hearing that which my soul desired—the Word of Life. When the minister commenced speaking, I fixed my mind with deep attention upon the spirit and matter of his discourse; but, after hearing him through, I returned home, convinced that he neither understood nor appreciated the subject upon which he spoke, and I said in my heart that there was not then upon earth the religion which I sought. I therefore determined to examine my Bible, and, taking Jesus and his disciples for my guide, to endeavour to obtain from God that which man could neither give nor take away. Notwithstanding this, I would hear all that could be said, as well as read much that was written, on the subject of religion; but the Bible I intended should be my guide to life and salvation. This course I pursued a number of years. At length I considered it my duty to be baptized, and, finding a minister who was willing to baptize me, and leave me free in regard to joining any religious denomination, I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance; after [p.49] which I continued to read the Bible as formerly, until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year....{{ref|lucy.48}}
* MormonThink is confusing the two time frames. They do not understand the documents well at all. Why not?
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|subject=Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|summary=Critics claim that since there was a religious revival in Palmyra, New York in 1824-25 which appears to match details of Joseph Smith's official Church history, he must have mistakenly mixed this event in with his narrative about what happened in 1820, and that the Prophet's mother joined the Presbyterian church after Alvin Smith died in late 1823. This contradicts Joseph's statement that she joined in 1820, thereby dating Joseph's First Vision to no earlier than 1823.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Cowdery's statement that Smith had wondered, several years after the alleged "first vision," as to whether "a Supreme Being did exist";
|think=
* This sentence does not say that Joseph Smith was trying to find out if there was a God.
* Joseph was seeking for:
# a full manifestation of divine "approbation" [or acceptance in the eyes of God, not in a God he doesn't already believe in] and
# for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist [a parenthetical aside rather than a question Joseph was asking], to have an assurance that he was accepted of [H]im [Joseph was seeking reassurance as to his own standing with God]."
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823
|subject=Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823?
|summary=Critics claim that according to a historical document published in Kirtland, Ohio in 1835 the Prophet Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in the year 1823. This text, therefore, provides evidence that Joseph Smith simply made up the story about the First Vision happening in the year 1820. But, this misunderstands both the statement and the historical chronology.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=and the fact that as late as 1851, church publications such as the "Times and Seasons" were calling the angel that visited Joseph "Nephi," rather than Moroni.
|think=
*Did you know that the first anti-Mormon book, ''Mormonism Unvailed'', published in '''1834''', referred to the angel as "Moroni?"
*Did you know that the reference to the angel as "Nephi" depended upon a single error that was copied?
|quote=
* ''Mormonism Unvailed'' - 1834, reprinted as ''History of Mormonism'' in 1840 [an anti-Mormon book]
<blockquote>
After he had finished translating the Book of Mormon, he again buried up the plates in the side of a mountain, by command of the Lord; some time after this, he was going through a piece of woods, on a by-path, when he discovered an old man dressed in ordinary grey apparel...The Lord told him that the man he saw was MORONI, with the plates, and if he had given him the five coppers, he might have got his plates again. (emphasis in original)
</blockquote>
* There are [[Moroni's_visit/Nephi_or_Moroni#Sources_which_mention_Moroni|many other early sources]] that use the correct name of "Moroni". Why doesn't MormonThink tell us about them?

|link=Moroni's visit/Nephi or Moroni
|subject=Nephi or Moroni
|summary=The Church teaches that Moroni was the heavenly messenger which appeared to Joseph Smith and directed him to the gold plates. Yet, some Church sources give the identity of this messenger as Nephi. Critics claim that this shows that Joseph was 'making it up as he went along.' In fact, a single misprint was reprinted a few times. But, earliest sources (even hostile ones) give the name as "Moroni".
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=A young Joseph, an amazing vision, the birth of Mormonism - it all started with a great revival. Joseph Smith gave a vivid description of the revival that took place in his boyhood town of Palmyra, New York....This revival made a big impression on Joseph Smith, but what kind of mark did it leave in history? Could we pinpoint the place and date of this event and verify that it really happened? Would church records for the years immediately before and after a revival, show a sudden jump in church memberships telling us exactly when this took place? What if we found the actual records but there was no evidence of a revival?
|think=
*{{Antispeak|beg the question}}
* Where's the "vivid description" that MormonThink talks about? Joseph hardly ''describes'' the religious excitement at all, he merely says that it was there and that it made a large impression on him.
* MormonThink is begging the question: they are assuming what they want to prove. They are calling these events "a revival," when Joseph never called them by that term.
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious revivals in 1820
|subject=Were there revivals in 1820?
|summary=Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it"
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Methodist camp meetings
|subject2=Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area
|summary2=Critics claim that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Multiple sources revealed evidence of a great religious excitement, with big gains in church membership for all the denominations mentioned by Joseph. But, instead of the revival beginning in 1820, it started in the autumn of 1824 and continued into the spring of 1825.
|think=
* This is irrelevant. There was a revival in 1824-25, but there was also religious excitement and camp meetings in the correct time and place for Joseph's account.
*MormonThink is relying upon an old and discredited chronology popular with anti-Mormon sources.
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious revivals in 1820
|subject=Were there revivals in 1820?
|summary=Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it"
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Methodist camp meetings
|subject2=Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area
|summary2=Critics claim that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The second detail was Joseph Smith's statement that the revival took place "sometime in the second year after our removal to Manchester" (PGP/JS History 1:5). Research into existing tax records and property assessments indicate the most likely date for the Smith family's move onto their Manchester farm is 1822. A revival occurring in the second year after 1822 fits the 1824 revival date (Inventing, pp. 7-8).
|think=
* MormonThink is here citing a well-known anti-Mormon work, {{CriticalWork:Marquardt Walters:Inventing Mormonism|pages=7-8}}
* The U.S. Census Bureau listed the Smiths in Farmington (now Manchester) in 1820. The Smith farm, clearing the land and a log house, all supported evidence that the Smiths, and most everyone else, considered themselves in Manchester, even though they technically lived about 59 feet off their property (in Palmyra). Legal U.S. documents now considered the Smiths in Farmington (later called Manchester) even though, technically, the log house was 59 feet away on the Palmyra side of the line.
* MormonThink is not up to date, and is not citing all the documents. Why do you suppose that is?
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Smith family place of residence in 1820
|subject=Smith family place of residence in 1820
|summary=Critics claim that there are discrepancies in Joseph's account of his family's early history, which make his 1820 and subsequent revelations impossible, and that there is no evidence that the Smith family was in the Palmyra area in 1820 for the religious excitement and First Vision which Joseph reported.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=FAIR believes that there was some sort of revival in 1820. I guess it depends on how you define a revival. Some believe that an ad in the newspaper for a church camp meeting is a revival. The revival Joseph seems to be referring to that sparked his quest is more like the big revivals that started in 1824 where membership jumped dramatically.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|beg the question}}
*No, FAIR does ''not'' believe that there was some sort of revival in 1820. FAIR states, based upon newspaper data, that there were Methodist camp meetings being held in the Palmyra area. FAIR never states that there was a "revival." MormonThink has locked onto the idea of a "revival," despite the fact the Joseph himself never called the "excitement" a revival.
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious revivals in 1820
|subject=Were there revivals in 1820?
|summary=Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it"
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Methodist camp meetings
|subject2=Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area
|summary2=Critics claim that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Hyrum, Samuel, Katherine, and Joseph's mother, Lucy, became members of the Presbyterian church after one of these revivals but his father would not join because of some feelings engendered at Alvin's funeral. Thus, by implication, these family members joined near the time of Alvin's death [in November 1823]. Lucy Smith, in her account, indicated that she and several of her family became interested in joining with a church shortly after Alvin's death. This would indicate that they probably joined the Presbyterian church early in 1824.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
* This claim is false. The "Smith family" did not join the Presbyterian church; Joseph's mother and a few siblings did. Lucy discusses another group to which she was attracted after the First Vision. She and much of the family was inclined thereto: Joseph was not.
|quote=
* Lucy Mack Smith even reports what Joseph told her:

<blockquote>Shortly after the death of Alvin, '''a man commenced labouring in the neigbourhood, to effect a union of the different churches'' [note that this is not the Presbyterians], in order that all might be agreed, and thus worship God with one heart and with one mind. 

This scented about right to me, and I felt much inclined to join in with them; in fact, the most of the family appeared quite disposed to unite with their numbers; but Joseph, from the first, utterly refused even to attend their meetings, saying, "Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to meeting, or any of the rest of the family's; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods, and learn more in two hours, than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time." 

To gratify me, my husband attended some two or three meetings, but peremptorily refused going any more, either for my gratification, or any other person's. 

[p.91] During this excitement, Joseph would say, it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long, for we were mistaken in them, and did not know the wickedness of their hearts.{{ref|lucy.90.91b}} {{ea}}</blockquote>

* Lucy and some siblings were Presbyterian members, but this was ''prior'' to Joseph's First Vision:{{ref|lucy.74b}}
:[48] [Prior to Joseph Smith Sr. losing his farm in Vermont around 1802] I heard that a very devout man was to preach the next Sabbath in the Presbyterian Church; I therefore went to meeting, in the full expectation of hearing that which my soul desired—the Word of Life. When the minister commenced speaking, I fixed my mind with deep attention upon the spirit and matter of his discourse; but, after hearing him through, I returned home, convinced that he neither understood nor appreciated the subject upon which he spoke, and I said in my heart that there was not then upon earth the religion which I sought. I therefore determined to examine my Bible, and, taking Jesus and his disciples for my guide, to endeavour to obtain from God that which man could neither give nor take away. Notwithstanding this, I would hear all that could be said, as well as read much that was written, on the subject of religion; but the Bible I intended should be my guide to life and salvation. This course I pursued a number of years. At length I considered it my duty to be baptized, and, finding a minister who was willing to baptize me, and leave me free in regard to joining any religious denomination, I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance; after [p.49] which I continued to read the Bible as formerly, until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year....{{ref|lucy.48b}}
* MormonThink is confusing the two. They do not understand the documents well at all. Why not?
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|subject=Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|summary=Critics claim that since there was a religious revival in Palmyra, New York in 1824-25 which appears to match details of Joseph Smith's official Church history, he must have mistakenly mixed this event in with his narrative about what happened in 1820, and that the Prophet's mother joined the Presbyterian church after Alvin Smith died in late 1823. This contradicts Joseph's statement that she joined in 1820, thereby dating Joseph's First Vision to no earlier than 1823.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=In the first history of Mormonism from 1835 written under Joseph Smith's direction, it says that the night of September 1823 Joseph Smith began praying in his bed to learn "the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him." (LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Feb. 1835) How could that possibly make sense if Smith had already seen God face-to-face some three years earlier in 1820?
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
* This source does not say that Joseph Smith was trying to find out if there was a God.
* Joseph was seeking for:
# a full manifestation of divine "approbation" [or acceptance in the eyes of God, not in a God he doesn't already believe in] and
# for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist [a parenthetical aside rather than a question Joseph was asking], to have an assurance that he was accepted of [H]im [Joseph was seeking reassurance as to his own standing with God]."
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823
|subject=Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823?
|summary=Critics claim that according to a historical document published in Kirtland, Ohio in 1835 the Prophet Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in the year 1823. This text, therefore, provides evidence that Joseph Smith simply made up the story about the First Vision happening in the year 1820.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Records show that in June of 1828, Joseph Smith applied for membership in his wife's Methodist Church. He also joined Methodist classes taught there. (The Amboy Journal, Amboy, IL, details Smith's activity in the Methodist Church in 1828. April 30, 1879 p. 1; May 21, 1879 p.1; June 11, 1879, p.1; July 2, 1879 p.1.)
|think=
* The "records" are a late recollection by Hiel and Joseph Lewis; they do not say that Joseph "applied for membership." These are not church records (as one might assume from MormonThink's description) but a hostile recollection from some cousins of Emma Smith long after the fact.
* They say that the Methodist minister inscribed Joseph's name in the class book, and when the "official members" found out about this, they made certain that any association with Joseph was quickly severed.
* Did you know that Methodists required people to be investigators ("probationers") for at least six months prior to becoming members? How did Joseph Smith manage to do this in three days (which is how long the sources used by MormonThink says his name was in the class book)?
* Why doesn't MormonThink even mention [[Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches#Sources_which_contradict_the_critics|these sources]]?
|link=Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches/Methodist_membership_procedures_and_Joseph_Smith
|subject=Do Hiel and Jospeh Lewis' account match with claims that Joseph was a member of the Methodists?
|summary=A review of the requirements of Methodist membership (at least six months probation), the necessity of baptism, and rules about how lapsed members were to be handled all make the claim that Joseph was a Methodist implausible.
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith joined other churches
|subject2=Did Joseph join other churches contrary to commandment in vision?
|summary2=Critics charge that Joseph Smith joined the Methodist, Presbyterian, or Baptist churches between 1820 and 1830—despite the claim made in his 1838 history that he was forbidden by Deity (during the 1820 First Vision experience) from joining any denomination. Unfortunately for the critics, these late sources are contradicted by multiple sources that are much closer in time to the period in question.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Numerous changes to the first edition of the Book of Mormon were made for its 2nd edition.... of the nearly 4,000 alterations, some of them had to do with Joseph's evolving belief about the nature of God. Notice how these verses changed from indicating that Jesus was God the Father to Jesus being the Son of God.
|think=
* The addition of "the Son of" to four passages in 1 Nephi does not change the Book of Mormon's teaching that Jesus Christ is the God of Old Testament Israel. This concept is taught in more than a dozen other passages whose readings remain unchanged from the original manuscripts. For example:
|quote=
**"And ''the God of our fathers'', who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, ''the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'', yieldeth himself...as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up...and to be crucified...and to be buried in a sepulchre...." ({{scripture|1|Nephi|19|10}})
**"...he said unto them that ''Christ was the God, the Father of all things'', and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that ''God should come down'' among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth." ({{scripture||Mosiah|7|27}})
**"Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, ''who is the very Eternal Father''." ({{scripture||Mosiah|16|15}})
**"Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: ''Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?'' And Amulek said unto him: Yea, ''he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth'', and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last." ({{scripture||Alma|11|38-39}})
* There are many, many other examples: {{scripture|2|Nephi|25|12}}; {{scripture||Mosiah|3|8}}; {{scripture||Mosiah|13|28,33-34}}; {{scripture||Mosiah|15|1}}; {{scripture||Helaman|8|22-23}}; {{scripture||Helaman|14|12}}; {{scripture||Helaman|16|18}}; {{scripture|3|Nephi|11|10,14}}; {{scripture||Mormon|9|12}}; {{scripture||Ether|3|14}}; {{scripture||Ether|4|7}}; {{scripture||Ether|4|12}}.)
* It is simply illogical to conclude that Joseph Smith changed the four passages in 1 Nephi to conform to his supposed changing theological beliefs, but somehow forgot to change all the others.
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"the Son of"
|subject="the Son of" added to 1 Nephi 11:18, 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32, and 1 Nephi 13:40
|summary=Critics charge that the earliest edition of the Book of Mormon referred to Jesus as "God," but in later editions this was changed to "the Son of God." They cite this as evidence that Joseph Smith changed the Book of Mormon to conform to his changing beliefs about the Trinity. They claim Joseph was originally a solid Trinitarian (perhaps even a Modalist), and as he later began to teach that the Father and Son were two separate beings, he had to change the Book of Mormon to support his new doctrine.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Numerous changes to the first edition of the Book of Mormon were made for its 2nd edition. '''LDS leaders would have you believe it is all punctuation and grammar corrections but''' of the nearly 4,000 alterations, some of them had to do with Joseph's evolving belief about the nature of God. {{ea}}
|think=
*{{Antispeak|liars}}
* If "LDS leaders" are trying to get members to believe that all the Book of Mormon changes were "punctuation and grammar corrections," why do they publish statements like the following in the ''Ensign''?
<blockquote>"In a few places, however, Joseph Smith did intentionally add to the text to clarify a point. An illustration of this is the added words the son of in 1 Nephi 11:21, 32, and 13:40. The text would be correct with or without the additional words, but the addition helps the reader avoid misunderstanding." - {{Ensign|author=George Horton|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/12/understanding-textual-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon]|date=December 1983}}</blockquote>

|quote=
* "Some have alleged that these books of revelation are false, and they place in evidence changes that have occurred in the texts of these scriptures since their original publication. They cite these changes, of which there are many examples, as though they themselves were announcing revelation. As though they were the only ones that knew of them. Of course there have been changes and corrections. Anyone who has done even limited research knows that. When properly reviewed, such corrections become a testimony for, not against, the truth of the books....Now, I add with emphasis that such changes have been basically minor refinements in grammar, expression, punctuation, clarification. Nothing fundamental has been altered. Why are they not spoken of over the pulpit? Simply because by comparison they are so insignificant, and unimportant as literally to be not worth talking about. After all, they have absolutely nothing to do with whether the books are true." -{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1974/04/we-believe-all-that-god-has-revealed We Believe All That God Has Revealed]|date=May 1974|pages=94}}
* Once again, the crafty LDS leaders are hiding matters by publishing them in the official magazine, and then sending a copy to each home.
* Other Church-produced or -published sources include:
** "Intentional additions to improve clarity: The most dramatic instance of clarifying a text is found at 1 Nephi 11:18, 21, 32 and 13:40, where the words "the son of" have been added before the names God and "the Eternal Father." Joseph Smith personally made these corrections in the 1837 edition. Given the fact that these texts are clearly talking about Jesus, the Son of God, the addition of "the son of" was appropriate to give additional clarity for the reader." - {{Book:Cheesman:Keystone Scripture|pages=249|author=George A. Horton, Jr.|article=Book of Mormon—Transmission from Translator to Printed Text}}
**{{CTBoM1_1}}
**{{CTBoM21_1}}
**{{CTBoM22_1}}

|link=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"the Son of"
|subject="the Son of" added to 1 Nephi 11:18, 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32, and 1 Nephi 13:40
|summary=Critics charge that the earliest edition of the Book of Mormon referred to Jesus as "God," but in later editions this was changed to "the Son of God." They cite this as evidence that Joseph Smith changed the Book of Mormon to conform to his changing beliefs about the Trinity. They claim Joseph was originally a solid Trinitarian (perhaps even a Modalist), and as he later began to teach that the Father and Son were two separate beings, he had to change the Book of Mormon to support his new doctrine.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Originally the Doctrine and Covenants contained the Lectures on Faith, accepted as doctrine by Joseph Smith in 1835. The Fifth Lecture on Faith (I think these lectures were actually part of the D & C until the church removed them in 1920) specifically states that the Father is a spirit, that only Jesus has a body, and that the Holy Ghost is the Mind of the Father and the Son. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon promoted this as doctrine in 1835. Yet the whole foundation of the church rests on the reality of the 1820 first vision that proves a different Godhead.
|think=
*There is no documentary evidence that indicates exactly when Joseph Smith learned that God the Father had a glorified and perfected body of flesh and bone. And, despite our typical assumptions, there is also no indication that Joseph learned any such thing during his 1820 First Vision.
*Regardless of when this revelation was bestowed upon the Prophet, it cannot be established beyond doubt that he was responsible for the teaching about the "spirit" nature of God found in the main text of lecture #5. It may, instead, be true that the Prophet was involved in adjusting the lecture #5 text to conform with his earlier work on the translation of the Bible.
|quote=
|response=
|link=First Vision/The Father as Spirit vs. Embodied
|subject=Is the Father embodied or a spirit?
|summary=When the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was published in 1835 it portrayed God the Father as a personage of spirit whereas Jesus Christ was portrayed as a personage of tabernacle, or one having a physical body. Yet the official LDS First Vision story portrays the Father as a physical Being. Critics claim that this is evidence of an evolution of story; and that the evolution of this story is evidence of fraud.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Another potential evidence that Joseph Smith did not see the Father and the Son in 1820, to those who believe in the restoration of the Priesthood, is the fact that in the year 1832 Joseph Smith claimed to have a revelation which stated that a man could not see God without the Priesthood. This revelation is published as Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants.
|think=
*When D&C 84:21-22 is analyzed in context then an interpretation emerges that does not support the one proposed by the Prophet's critics. The relevant words read:
<blockquote>
[19] "And this greater [i.e., Melchizedek] priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. [20] Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, '''the power of godliness''' is manifest. [21] And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, '''the power of godliness''' is not manifest unto men in the flesh; [22] For without '''this''' no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."
</blockquote>
*The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness."{{ref|robinson1}} One of the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood is the bestowal of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (see {{s||DC|49|14}}). As the Lord explained in an 1831 revelation, "no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God" ({{s||DC|67|11}}).
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Doctrine and Covenants 84 says God not seen without priesthood
|subject=D&C:84 says God cannot be seen without priesthood
|summary=Critics argue that Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God in 1820 and also claimed that he received the priesthood in 1829. But in a text which he produced in 1832 ({{S||DC|84|21-22}}) it is said that a person cannot see God without holding the priesthood. Therefore, critics claim that Joseph Smith contradicted himself and this counts as evidence against his calling as an authentic prophet of God.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=It appears that The only thing Joseph Smith said that was perhaps really unique was that God the Father had a body of "flesh and bone". But who can say if he is correct or not?
Even if Joseph was the first person to propose something, it is very flawed logic to assume what he proposed is true or that he is a prophet for proposing it - especially when it can't be proven one way or another.

|think=
*Well, the interesting thing is that Joseph never said anything about the personages having "flesh and bone" in his accounts of his vision. That teaching came later.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Also, Joseph is often credited with being the first person to claim that there are three degrees of glory (which no one knows is right or wrong anyway). But this concept has also been around a long time. In 1784, Emanuel Swedenborg wrote a book called Heaven and Hell and Its Wonders about his visions of the afterlife. Swedenborg insisted: "There are three heavens," described as "entirely distinct from each other." He called the highest heaven "the Celestial Kingdom," and stated that the inhabitants of the three heavens corresponded to the "sun, moon and stars."
|think=
*Swedenborg was hardly the first theologian or thinker to suggest that heavenly rewards were not all identical, but graduated into degrees of glory. The discussion and debate about the fate of the righteous in heaven goes back to the earliest Christian centuries.
*The charge that Swedenborg was Joseph's source was not even mentioned by those who disliked both Joseph and Swedenborg, and knew both works. Elements in Joseph's schema are present in the Bible, but not present in Swedenborg's model. The claim of "similarity" rests on a few superficial similarities between Joseph and Swedenborg and the Bible—and ignores the many marked differences between them.
*Even if one is not inclined to grant Joseph Smith prophetic status, it seems far more plausible that his view of a three-tiered heaven derives from the New Testament, and not from Swedenborg.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Plan of salvation/Three degrees of glory/Swedenborg
|subject=Swedenborg
|summary=Critics claim that Joseph Smith derived the idea of "three degrees of glory" in the afterlife from Emanuel Swedenborg's book, ''Heaven and its Wonders and Hell From Things Heard and Seen'' (1758). Critics also claim that Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage was similar to Swedenborg's philosophy of "spiritual wifery."
*You can read the source here: [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Heaven_And_Hell ''Heaven and Hell or, Heaven and its Wonders and Hell''] (1905) by Emanuel Swedenborg, translated by John C. Ager
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The different versions of the First Vision. The following is as close to an official response from the LDS Church that we could find: Ensign Article See the January 1985 issue of The Ensign on the church's web site. The site does not allow a direct link to the article. You'll have to use the index, just cut and paste the following into your web browser: http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm Church Publications/Magazines/Ensign/1985/January
Joseph Smith's Recitals of the First Vision by Milton V. Backman, Jr.
|think=
*This is bizarre: You mean it doesn't allow ''this'' direct link?
<blockquote>
Milton Backman Jr., "[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision]," ''Ensign'', January 1985.
</blockquote>
*We found this by searching lds.org just like for any other article.
*Try Googling "Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision"—that ''also'' brings up a direct link to the article on lds.org as the first Google search result.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=It is obvious by the above statements by church leaders that the First Vision did not happen in the way the Church portrays. The church would have you believe that Joseph had the vision in 1820 and that it has always been the central part of the LDS faith. In fact the one, simple, plain truth that every member that joined the church should have known is that God the Father and Jesus Christ were separate beings. We take this for granted now but this wasn't firmly established until over 15 years after the event supposedly occurred.
|think=
* The separate nature of God and Christ was apparent from the very earliest LDS documents, such as the Book of Mormon.
* MormonThink plays a good trick the numbers--note that it is "over 15 years after the event supposedly occurred." Since the vision was in 1820 and the Church wasn't organized until 1830, ten of the fifteen years had already passed. Were future Mormons supposed to be learning Joseph's theology before he had even founded a church? So, MormonThink has already admitted that this was unmistakeable within 5 years of the Church's establishment.
* But, the earliest documents go back even further than that.
|quote=

* In 1829, the Book of Mormon was translated:

:The Book of Mormon also begins (1 Nephi 1:8-10) with Lehi's vision of God on his throne. One [Christ] followed by twelve others descends from God to speak with Lehi--thus, Jesus and the Father are here both separate, and the role of Christ in giving instructions to the prophet while the Father looks on and approves is followed, just as it was in Joseph's First Vision. Here too, Lehi is described as praying to "the Lord," and yet has a vision of both God the Father and Christ.

* Between June and October 1830, Joseph had dictated his revision (the "Joseph Smith Translation") to Genesis. Joseph's rendered {{s||Genesis|1|26|27}} as:

:And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so....And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. ({{s||Moses|2|26-27}}.)

* There can be no doubt that Joseph understood "in mine own image" to refer to a physical likeness, rather than merely a moral or intellectual one. The JST of {{s||Genesis|5|1-2}} reads

:In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; ''in the image of his own body'', male and female, created he them ({{s||Moses|6|8-9}}, emphasis added)

*Thus, by 1830 Joseph's revelations were clearly teaching a separation of the Father and Son, and insisting that both had some type of physical form which could be copied in the creation of humanity. (It is not clear, however, whether he understood the physical nature of the Father's body at this early date. He still, however, taught that [[Joseph Smith's First Vision/The Father as Spirit vs. Embodied|the Father was a distinct personage]] and entity with form that could be seen.)

* Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, also noted that other Christian denominations took issue with the new Church because of its teachings about God, noting that in 1830:

:the different denominations are very much opposed to us.... the Methodists also come, and they rage, for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle.{{ref|lucy.mack.smith.145}}

* All this is less than a year from the Church's organization. Some members may have not internalized these ideas, or may have been slow to abandon ideas about God rooted in two millennia of Christian history, but MormonThink's claim simply does not match the earliest documents.

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith's early conception of God
|subject=Joseph Smith's early conception of God
|summary=Critics claim that Joseph Smith initially taught standard Nicene trinitarianism. The early documents tell a different story, however.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Joseph recounted how the visitation of the angel Moroni happened on September 21, 1823. An interesting question - how is it that JS could remember the precise date of the angel's visit in 1823, but could not remember the precise date of God's appearance to him in 1820?
|think=
*Because he was 14 years old. He probably didn't even know the date.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=We can accept that Joseph wanted to fellowship with other believers in Christ even if he didn't believe their doctrine. So we don't have a problem if Joseph merely attended an occasional Methodist church service. Most of us involved with MormonThink don't think that this particular problem with the First Vision is as serious as some critics claim. However we are somewhat disturbed if he actually tried to officially join the Methodist Church as God specifically told him not to....Joseph was welcomed, not persecuted by the Methodists.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
*{{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
MormonThink has above quoted the ''Amboy Journal'' of 1879 in an attempt to prove that Joseph joined the Methodists in 1828. Why do they not report what the Methodists did to Joseph within ''three days'' of him attending?
|quote=
:...while he, Smith, was in Harmony, Pa., translating his book....that he joined the M[ethodist] [Episocpal] church. He presented himself in a very serious and humble manner, and the minister, not suspecting evil, put his name on the class book, the absence of some of the official members, among whom was the undersigned, Joseph Lewis, who, when he learned what was done, took with him Joshua McKune, and had a talk with Smith. They told him plainly that such a character as he was a disgrace to the church, that he could not be a member of the church unless he broke off his sins by repentance, made public confession, renounced his fraudulent and hypocritical practices, and gave some evidence that he intended to reform and conduct himself somewhat nearer like a christian than he had done. They gave him his choice, to go before the class, and publicly ask to have his name stricken from the class book, or stand a disciplinary investigation. He chose the former, and immediately withdrew his name. So his name as a member of the class was on the book only three days.--It was the general opinion that his only object in joining the church was to bolster up his reputation and gain the sympathy and help of christians; that is, putting on the cloak of religion to serve the devil in.{{ref|lewis.1}}

* Given that Lewis says he arranged Joseph's ouster from the group within three days as soon as he heard of it, and that most people assumed Joseph was only trying to "build his reputation," to "serve the devil in," despite coming "in a very serious and humble manner" this does not sound at all like he was "welcomed...by the Methodists."
* And, remember that this late recollection is the ''only'' mention of Joseph being a Methodist at all. [[Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches#Sources_which_contradict_the_critics|Several sources]] that are much earlier (from both friendly and hostile witnesses) assert that Joseph never joined a church.

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Persecution after the vision
|subject=Persecution after the vision?
|summary=Some claim that there is no evidence that Joseph or his family were persecuted because of the First Vision. They argue that this means that Joseph invented the story later.
|link2=Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches/Methodist_membership_procedures_and_Joseph_Smith
|subject2=Do Hiel and Jospeh Lewis' account match with claims that Joseph was a member of the Methodists?
|summary2=A review of the requirements of Methodist membership (at least six months probation), the necessity of baptism, and rules about how lapsed members were to be handled all make the claim that Joseph was a Methodist implausible.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=How do we know that it wasn't Satan (if he exists) that appeared to Joseph? Please read this insightful essay to see how Satan can appear as a Heavenly Being as described by Joseph Smith.
|think=
* {{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/brainvat/#H5''How do we know we are not a brain in a vat, wired to a computer?'']
*The editors at MormonThink have spent a considerable amount of effort demonstrating the God really doesn't exist, but just to make sure every base is covered, they are going to suggest that it might have been ''Satan'' that appeared? If, of course, he exists. Any source will do as long as it leads to a disbelief in the Church, is that it?
* MormonThink has spent a great deal of time claiming that Joseph deceived people; now they want to turn around and claim he ''did'' see a vision, but it was satanic?
|quote=
|link=Moroni's visit/Angel of Satan
|subject=Moroni as an "angel of Satan"
|summary=Some critics have charged that Moroni, the resurrected prophet who gave the Book of Mormon plates to Joseph Smith, was really an angel of Satan.
|link2=Holy Ghost/Revelation from God or the devil
|subject2=Revelation from God or the devil
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=One of the best summaries and perhaps most plausible explanations for the various issues surrounding Joseph's First Vision, can be found in the last chapter of LDS Church Education System teacher Grant Palmer's book An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. After presenting an impressive series of well-documented arguments against the traditional version we've all been taught in the church, the author proposes a very plausible explanation: "After a mass exodus of high-ranking church leaders including several apostles, all three special witnesses of the BOM and three of the eight witnesses to the BOM, Joseph took to reestablishing his authority. He made many changes to the church including changing the name of the church. He began by attacking those who were circulating unsavory "reports" regarding "the rise and progress of the Church", then told a revised and more impressive version of his epiphany.
|think=
* MormonThink describes Palmer as an "LDS Church Education System teacher." Palmer was disfellowshipped and then left the Church. Why doesn't MormonThink tell us that?
*This argument is a reference to the Kirtland crisis of 1837–38. Warren Parrish was considered by some of the Saints to be the ringleader of the Kirtland crisis. It is, therefore, all the more interesting that it was this same Warren Parrish who acted as scribe in recording a First Vision recital given by the Prophet Joseph Smith on 9 November 1835. When Parrish's 1835 account of the theophany is compared to the 1838 account it becomes glaringly obvious that the story did not change over time, as the critics would like everyone to believe.
*But, Joseph didn't just write the experience down in 1835, ''he was telling other people about it.'' This had nothing to do with "reestablishing his authority" three years later.
*Why is Palmer the first person to figure this out? If apostles and the Book of Mormon witnesses were at odds with Joseph, surely they knew what story Joseph had been telling them all along? They were very close to him from the beginning, especially people like Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer. Why did ''none'' of these men notice what Palmer wants us to accept? Why did none of them say, "Hey, Joseph, you're changing your story?" Quite simply because he didn't, and so it didn't even occur to them. Otherwise, they'd have been quick to point it out.
|quote=
*From Joseph's journal:
<blockquote>
14 November 1835 • Saturday 
A Gentleman called this after noon by the name of Erastus Holmes of Newbury Clemon [Newberry, Clermont] Co. Ohio, he called to make enquiry about the establishment of the church of the latter-day Saints and to be instructed more perfectly in our doctrine &c I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old and also the visitations that I received afterward, concerning the book of Mormon, and a short account of the rise and progress of the church, up to this, date he listened verry attentively and seemed highly gratified, and intends to unite with the Church he is a verry candid man indeed and I am much pleased with him.
</blockquote>
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts/1838/Account modified to offset leadership crisis
|subject=1838 account modified to offset leadership crisis?
|summary=Critics claim that in 1838 Joseph Smith revised his personal history to say that his original call came from God the Father and Jesus Christ rather than an angel. His motive for doing this was to give himself a stronger leadership role because an authority crisis had recently taken place and large-scale apostasy was the result.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Now whenever we go out with missionaries (some of us actually still do that) as they teach the First Vision, it makes us wonder what really happened to Joseph? Did he see God the Father and Jesus or just Jesus or just angels and which of the many reported circumstances surrounding the First Vision actually occurred?
|think=
*We don't think that MormonThink's webmaster goes out with the missionaries any more.
*None of Joseph's accounts state that he saw ''just'' angels. One account states that in addition to the two personages, that he saw "many angels."
|quote=
*From Joseph's journal dated 9 November, 1835:
<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.
</blockquote>
*Then, just five days later on 14 November, 1835, Joseph wrote the following in his journal:
<blockquote>
I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old.
</blockquote>
*It is unlikely Joseph changed his story between the 9th and 14th of November. It is obvious that he interchangeably used the word "Angels" (Note the capitalization) and "personages."
*You may read the primary source here: [[Primary sources/Joseph Smith, Jr./First Vision accounts/1835]]
*Once again, no one in Joseph's day called him on the obvious "contradiction" that MormonThink wants us to accept. Why not? There was no contradiction to notice.
}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|bushman.41}}{{Book:Bushman:Rough Stone Rolling|pages=41}}
#{{note|bushman.40.41}}{{Book:Bushman:Rough Stone Rolling:Short|pages=40-41}}
#{{note|lucy.90.91}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors|pages=90-91}}
#{{note|lucy.74}} Note that Lucy quotes Joseph's report that his mother and four siblings were members of the Presbyterian faith prior to his vision in {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=74}}
#{{note|lucy.48}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=48}}
#{{note|lucy.90.91b}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=90-91}}
#{{note|lucy.74b}} Note that Lucy quotes Joseph's report that his mother and four siblings were members of the Presbyterian faith prior to his vision in {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=74}}
#{{note|lucy.48b}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=48}}
#{{note|robinson1}} "...godliness can be permanently, individually attained only through the ordinances of the holy priesthood. Nevertheless, 'godliness' or being like God can be attained temporarily in another way - by transfiguration. If the Holy Ghost enters into our physical bodies, so that for a moment we become one with the Spirit, then have been thus 'transfigured' to godliness, we are able to see the face of God and live." {{Book:Robinson Garret:Commentary on the D&C:3|pages=32-33}}
#{{note|lucy.mack.smith.145}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=145}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The First Vision

2012-12-13T10:06:46Z

MikeSantoy: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../|MormonThink]]
|author=Anonymous
|noauthor=
|section=The First Vision
|previous=[[../The Witnesses|The Witnesses]]
|next=[[../Polygamy|Polygamy]]
|notes=
}}
==A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "The First Vision"==

==== ====
{{Website response summary|date=7 May 2012}}

{{MormonThinkSummaryHeader|The First Vision}}
*That the First Vision "wasn't even known by church members until 1842," despite Joseph writing in his 1835 journal that he related the story to a man who happened to be visiting him, and despite a skeptical newspaper account describing how Mormon missionaries were teaching that Joseph had personally seen God in November of 1830.
*That local newspapers would have been interested enough in a 14-year-old's claim to have seen God to have published it.
*That earlier accounts of Joseph's vision written by Joseph himself are not "official," whatever that means.
*That Joseph's different accounts of the First Vision are "relatively ignored" by the Church, despite an [http://lds.org/study/topics/accounts-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng entire web page being devoted to them on lds.org] and various mentions in the ''Ensign'', including a [http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=66a205481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD statement by Gordon B. Hinckley].
*That Joseph embellished his vision story in 1838 to bolster his leadership during a time of apostasy, despite the fact that he told the same story to strangers visiting his house three years earlier in 1835.

==== ====
{{Website response label}}

==={{Subarticles label}}===

{{SummaryItem
|link=/Source quotes without commentary
|subject=Source quotes without critical commentary
|summary=If you would like to read all of the source quotes without wading through all of the "Critic's comments," "Apologetic rebuttals" and "Our Thoughts" sections, we present the critical web page as it would appear if ''only'' the source quotes were provided without any additional commentary. We also try to provide accurate references and direct links to the original source text rather than simply linking to other websites where you have to search for them.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The First Vision wasn't even known by church members until 1842, and even then it wasn't very important. Joseph said that he was persecuted for telling people that he had seen a vision. There is simply no evidence that Joseph told anyone about the vision until many years later and not until after the Book of Mormon was published. There are no accounts in the newspapers, by neighbors, preachers or even by the members of Joseph's own family. There is much evidence to indicate that the First Vision either never really happened or was very different than we've been taught.
|think=
* This is absurd. If no one knew about the vision "until 1842," why was a skeptical newspaper account describing how Mormon missionaries were teaching that Joseph had personally seen God in November of 1830? Not only had Church members heard that Joseph had seen God, but they were preaching it and a hostile press was ''writing about it.''
|quote=

*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).
*Report in a non-LDS newspaper that Mormon missionaries were teaching at least six of the beginning elements of the First Vision story (''Fredonia Censor'', vol. 11, no. 50, 7 March 1832).
* When the Rev. John A. Clark published his autobiography he mixed nine First Vision story elements together with the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and said that he learned them all in the Fall of 1827 from Martin Harris (John A. Clark, ''Gleanings by the Way'' [Philadelphia: W. J. and J. K. Simmon, 1842],---).

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|subject=No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|summary=Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time. Learn the facts here.
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No mention in non-LDS literature before 1843
|summary2=No mention of First Vision in non-LDS literature before 1843?
|subject2=No mention in non-LDS literature before 1843?|summary=There is no mention of the First Vision in non-Mormon literature before 1843. If the First Vision story had been known by the public before 1840 (when Orson Pratt published his pamphlet) the anti-Mormons “surely” would have seized upon it as an evidence of Joseph Smith’s imposture.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=James B. Allen, who served as assistant church historian, frankly admitted that the story of the first vision "was not given general circulation in the 1830's." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p.33). Dr. Allen makes some startling concessions in this article. He admits, for instance, 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...." Dr. Allen goes on to state that in the 1830's "the general membership of the Church knew little, if anything, about it."
|authorsources=
*Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, pages 29-45.
|think=
*That isn't exactly what James B. Allen said. He said that the story "at best" received "limited circulation."
<blockquote>
The fact that none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830s, 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.''' (emphasis added)
</blockquote>
* Why doesn't MormonThink quote any work done ''after'' 1966 on this point? Don't they realize that more documents or accounts may have been discovered?
|quote=

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/1830 statement about seeing "God"
|subject=Missionaries 1830 statement about Joseph seeing "God"
|summary=Critics have claimed that just because LDS missionaries were teaching around 1 November 1830 that Joseph Smith had previously seen “God” personally it cannot be assumed that this was a reference to God the Father since the Book of Mormon (completed ca. 11 June 1829) refers to Jesus Christ as “the eternal God” (title page; 2 Nephi 26:12). The argument is made that since this evidence indicates that Joseph Smith understood Jesus Christ to be “God” the statement by the missionaries may have simply meant that Joseph Smith had seen the Savior; not necessarily the Father.
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|subject2=No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|summary2=Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Why did Joseph Smith fail to mention his First Vision when he first wrote the church history in 1835? Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery wrote and published a history of the church that supposedly covered all of the important points related to its beginnings. However, Joseph Smith records a different story than the "official" one later published in 1842. In Joseph Smith's own 1835 published history of the church, he says that his first spiritual experience was in 1823 after a religious revival in Palmyra that same year.
|think=
*Because Oliver wrote the history, not Joseph. Oliver was writing at the request of WW Phelps, and responding as Phelps wrote him letters.
*Why doesn't MormonThink mention here that Joseph ''wrote an account of his First Vision in his journal in 1835''? Or an account in ''1832''? They quote a reference from the Tanner's which mentions it later on the webpage. Why not acknowledge it here?
*Did you know that Oliver wrote the two-part account of Joseph's vision as part of the Church history and not Joseph? Did you know that the first part published described exactly the conditions that led to the First Vision, including Joseph's age of 14, before describing the vision itself?
*Did you know that by the time that Oliver published the next part, that he said that he had made a mistake on the year, and changed it to '''three years later''' (age 14 to age 17) and then proceeded to describe Moroni's visit instead? Do you get the idea that Joseph told Oliver not to continue the first vision account that he had started to publish and to focus instead on Moroni's visit?
*Did you know that Oliver indicated that he had written records that he was using to create the history, and that those records likely included Joseph's 1832 journal account of the First Vision?
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts/Oliver Cowdery not aware of First Vision in 1834-35
|subject=Oliver Cowdery's 1834 account of the First Vision/Moroni's visit
|summary=Was Oliver Cowdery unaware of the First Vision as late as 1834–1835?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=[I]n the early 1800s having visions wasn't perceived to be all that uncommon. Even Joseph Smith's father claimed to have had a vision - namely the Tree of Life vision. People believed in magic, seer stones, divining rods, etc. and people claiming to have visions weren't seen as all that strange. Like much of Joseph's work, the first vision is strikingly similar to someone else's story.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
*Since visions were not uncommon, that kind of explains why Joseph didn't really mention it to many people, or why many people didn't pay much attention if he did.
*MormonThink can't have it both ways: it can't be both astonishing that no one remembered Joseph talking about his First Vision in early Palmyra, ''and'' that such things were regarded as common. They ''were'' seen as common (and somewhat disreputable) and so it is no surprise that no one local paid any attention to it at the time.
* Pastors of that day looked down on people who claimed to see God in a vision - such things were being discouraged.
*It was the vision of ''Moroni'' and the subsequent recovery and translation of the Book of Mormon that caused Joseph to realize that his path was different than others who had claimed to see visions. Therefore, Joseph emphasized that and only wrote the full account of his First Vision much later.
|quote=
* As Richard Bushman noted:
::The clergy of the mainline churches automatically suspected any visionary report, whatever its content...The only acceptable message from heaven was assurance of forgiveness and a promise of grace. Joseph's report of God's rejection of all creeds and churches would have sounded all too familiar to the Methodist evangelical, who repeated the conventional point that "all such things had ceased with the apostles and that there never would be any more of them."{{ref|bushman.41}}
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|subject=No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|summary=Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Since Joseph never told anyone about the vision, he wasn't persecuted. There is simply no evidence that he was ever persecuted for the First Vision....How strange that Joseph says that the neighborhood knew enough about it to persecute this obscure boy, but his own family hadn't heard about it at all. If Joseph's story had actually occurred and caused said excitement, someone would have mentioned it. No one did....God & Christ visit a young boy, and because of local gossip, he withheld that info from his family. And yet then he receives another visitation three years later from an angel, and immediately he tells his family? Why the inconsistencies?
|think=
*{{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
*Joseph never said that his vision caused "excitement." He described being persecuted for it:
:"Joseph did tell a Methodist preacher about the First Vision. Newly reborn people customarily talked over their experiences with a clergyman to test the validity of the conversion. The preacher's contempt shocked Joseph. Standing on the margins of the evangelical churches, Joseph may not have recognized the ill repute of visionaries. The preacher reacted quickly and negatively, '''not because of the strangeness of Joseph's story, but because of its familiarity'''. Subjects of revivals all too often claimed to have seen visions."{{ref|bushman.40.41}}
*MormonThink can't have it both ways: it can't be both astonishing that no one remembered Joseph talking about his First Vision in early Palmyra, ''and'' that such things were regarded as common (see above). They ''were'' seen as common (and somewhat disreputable) and so it is no surprise that no one local paid much attention to it at the time, other than to be scornful or dismissive if Joseph told them.
|quote=
* Joseph did not tell his family about Moroni until he was ''commanded'' to do so by the angel. Rather than being inconsistent, this reinforces the truthfulness of Joseph's account: he apparently wasn't inclined to tell everyone until he was directed to do so. Perhaps he had learned his lesson and was "once bitten, twice shy"?
* Why do you suppose MormonThink doesn't tell us this? It's right in Joseph's official history, and yet they act like his actions are completely mysterious. Do they not know the material at all, or are they hiding something intentionally?
: I shortly after arose from my bed, and, as usual, went to the necessary labors of the day; but, in attempting to work as at other times, I found my strength so exhausted as to render me entirely unable. My father, who was laboring along with me, discovered something to be wrong with me, and told me to go home. I started with the intention of going to the house; but, in attempting to cross the fence out of the field where we were, my strength entirely failed me, and I fell helpless on the ground, and for a time was quite unconscious of anything. The first thing that I can recollect was a voice speaking unto me, calling me by name. I looked up, and beheld the same messenger standing over my head, surrounded by light as before. He then again related unto me all that he had related to me the previous night, and commanded me to go to my father and tell him of the vision and commandments which I had received ([http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.48-49?lang=eng#47 Joseph Smith History 1:48-49]).

}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=If it really happened, why couldn't Joseph Smith tell a consistent story about such a powerful experience as meeting with God and Jesus Christ face-to-face?
How many people forget where they were when their first child was born? Or when they got their patriarchal blessing? Or their wedding night? How many forget who they were with and what happened? If we can remember details such as year, circumstance and those involved, why couldn't Joseph Smith consistently recall basic facts about his incredible First Vision?
|think=
*{{antispeak|mocking}} Note the characterization of Joseph's "powerful experience" and "incredible" First Vision.
*Joseph ''did'' remember consistently where he was and when it happened.
*How many of you forget the date of your anniversary? Or your dates of your kids' birthdays?
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=In Joseph Smith's first handwritten testimony of the first vision in 1832, he says he already knew all other churches were false before he prayed. Smith testified: "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."....Yet in the "official" story written years later by a scribe, it has Joseph Smith saying: "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."
|think=
*If you had come to the conclusion that mankind has apostatized from the true faith, and you suddenly found Jesus standing in front of you, wouldn't ''you'' ask Him if any of those churches was the correct one? Or would you simply tell Him, "never mind, I already figured it out for myself?"
*Besides, where is the inconsistency? How many churches did Joseph have immediate knowledge of? Three or four? Joseph determined that the churches with which he had direct experience did not adhere to the scriptures and that therefore mankind "had apostatized from the true and living faith." During his vision, he then asked the Lord which church was right, because it had not occurred to him that the Lord's church ''didn't exist anywhere on the face of the earth.'' It had never entered into his heart that ''all'' churches were wrong.
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Contradiction about knowing all churches were wrong
|subject=Contradiction about knowing all churches were wrong
|summary=In his 1832 account of the First Vision, Joseph Smith said, “I found [by searching the scriptures] 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.” But in the 1835 account he said, “I knew not who [of the denominations] was right or who was wrong.” Critics claim that thus counts as evidence that the First Vision story evolved over time.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are earlier versions of the First Vision story in Joseph Smith's own handwriting, but they are not considered "official" and are relatively ignored by the church. 
One thing is clear, the LDS Church does a great disservice to investigators of its claims by presenting Joseph Smith's 1838 account of his first vision as the only version of these events.
 
UPDATE:
From the church's official web site, there is an article that gives the church's point of view on why there are multiple accounts of the First Vision.

|think=
*{{Antispeak|doesn't count}} No, it isn't clear at all: Where does the Church claim that the 1838 account is the "only version" of these events?
*Oh wait....there's an "update" all the way near the bottom of the article. Why not just update the information being shown instead of stating things at the beginning of the article that are not true, then providing a small "update" at the end of the article that corrects it?
*Did you mean to say that these accounts are "relatively ignored" ''except'' when they are ''mentioned in the ''Ensign'' and on the official Church website lds.org''?
|quote=
<blockquote>
During a 10-year period (1832–42), Joseph Smith wrote or dictated at least four accounts of the First Vision. These accounts are similar in many ways, but they include some differences in emphasis and detail. These differences are complementary. Together, his accounts provide a more complete record of what occurred. The 1838 account found in the Pearl of Great Price is the primary source referred to in the Church. 
—[http://lds.org/study/topics/accounts-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng ''Accounts of the First Vision''], Gospel Study, Study by Topic, located on lds.org. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his sacred experience of 1820. Possibly he penned or dictated other histories of the First Vision; if so, they have not been located. 
—Milton Backman Jr., "[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision]," ''Ensign'', January 1985.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration.''
 
—Dennis B. Neuenschwander, “[http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=aec2515e04f5e110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ],” Ensign, Jan 2009, 16–22.
 
I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life. 
—Gordon B. Hinckley, [http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=66a205481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “‘God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear’,] ''Ensign'', Oct 1984, 2
</blockquote>
* There is also a ''massive'' list of statements available. How can MormonThink ignore ''all'' these?
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1910-1968)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1910-1968)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1910-1968)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1969-1978)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1969-1978)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1969-1978)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1979-1983)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1979-1983)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1979-1983)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1984-1989)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1984-1989)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1984-1989)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1990-1997)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1990-1997)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1990-1997)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1998-2003)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1998-2003)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1998-2003)
}}
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Oliver Cowdery's account in the 1834 "Messenger and Advocate" stated that the "first vision" occurred in 1823---not a word about an 1820 vision. Cowdery's account also related that Smith's interest in religion was sparked by the preaching of Methodist elder George Lane, rather than Smith's version which claimed that he was inspired by reading in the Bible at 14. Cowdery also stated that the date of the "religious excitement in Palmyra and vicinity" was in Smith's "17th year," which would have been 1823, rather than 1820.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
* MormonThink has not taken a close enough look at the available documents to understand the true nature of the criticism which they advocate.
* Oliver Cowdery did, in fact, know about the First Vision when he recorded his version of the history of the Restoration—he had physical possession of the Prophet's 1832 history.
* Cowdery's dating anomaly and confused reporting of facts likely occurred because the Prophet was extremely busy during this time period and did not have much of a chance for editorial oversight (Cowdery, in fact, was the editor).
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts/Oliver Cowdery not aware of First Vision in 1834-35
|subject=Oliver Cowdery's 1834 account of the First Vision/Moroni's visit
|summary=Was Oliver Cowdery unaware of the First Vision as late as 1834–1835?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are other contradictions which cast doubt on the "first vision," such as the Smith family joining the Presbyterian church AFTER God has supposedly told Joseph that all churches were corrupt
|think=

* This claim is false. The "Smith family" did not join the Presbyterian church; Joseph's mother and a few siblings did. Lucy discusses another group to which she was attracted after the First Vision. She and much of the family was inclined thereto: Joseph was not, and ''he'' was the one told not to join any of them.
|quote=
* Lucy Mack Smith even reports what Joseph told her:

<blockquote>Shortly after the death of Alvin, '''a man commenced labouring in the neigbourhood, to effect a union of the different churches'' [note that this is not the Presbyterians], in order that all might be agreed, and thus worship God with one heart and with one mind. 

This scented about right to me, and I felt much inclined to join in with them; in fact, the most of the family appeared quite disposed to unite with their numbers; but Joseph, from the first, utterly refused even to attend their meetings, saying, "Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to meeting, or any of the rest of the family's; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods, and learn more in two hours, than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time." 

To gratify me, my husband attended some two or three meetings, but peremptorily refused going any more, either for my gratification, or any other person's. 

[p.91] During this excitement, Joseph would say, it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long, for we were mistaken in them, and did not know the wickedness of their hearts.{{ref|lucy.90.91}} {{ea}}</blockquote>

* Lucy and some siblings were Presbyterian members, but this was likely ''prior'' to Joseph's First Vision:{{ref|lucy.74}}
:[48] [Prior to Joseph Smith Sr. losing his farm in Vermont around 1802] I heard that a very devout man was to preach the next Sabbath in the Presbyterian Church; I therefore went to meeting, in the full expectation of hearing that which my soul desired—the Word of Life. When the minister commenced speaking, I fixed my mind with deep attention upon the spirit and matter of his discourse; but, after hearing him through, I returned home, convinced that he neither understood nor appreciated the subject upon which he spoke, and I said in my heart that there was not then upon earth the religion which I sought. I therefore determined to examine my Bible, and, taking Jesus and his disciples for my guide, to endeavour to obtain from God that which man could neither give nor take away. Notwithstanding this, I would hear all that could be said, as well as read much that was written, on the subject of religion; but the Bible I intended should be my guide to life and salvation. This course I pursued a number of years. At length I considered it my duty to be baptized, and, finding a minister who was willing to baptize me, and leave me free in regard to joining any religious denomination, I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance; after [p.49] which I continued to read the Bible as formerly, until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year....{{ref|lucy.48}}
* MormonThink is confusing the two time frames. They do not understand the documents well at all. Why not?
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|subject=Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|summary=Critics claim that since there was a religious revival in Palmyra, New York in 1824-25 which appears to match details of Joseph Smith's official Church history, he must have mistakenly mixed this event in with his narrative about what happened in 1820, and that the Prophet's mother joined the Presbyterian church after Alvin Smith died in late 1823. This contradicts Joseph's statement that she joined in 1820, thereby dating Joseph's First Vision to no earlier than 1823.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Cowdery's statement that Smith had wondered, several years after the alleged "first vision," as to whether "a Supreme Being did exist";
|think=
* This sentence does not say that Joseph Smith was trying to find out if there was a God.
* Joseph was seeking for:
# a full manifestation of divine "approbation" [or acceptance in the eyes of God, not in a God he doesn't already believe in] and
# for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist [a parenthetical aside rather than a question Joseph was asking], to have an assurance that he was accepted of [H]im [Joseph was seeking reassurance as to his own standing with God]."
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823
|subject=Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823?
|summary=Critics claim that according to a historical document published in Kirtland, Ohio in 1835 the Prophet Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in the year 1823. This text, therefore, provides evidence that Joseph Smith simply made up the story about the First Vision happening in the year 1820. But, this misunderstands both the statement and the historical chronology.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=and the fact that as late as 1851, church publications such as the "Times and Seasons" were calling the angel that visited Joseph "Nephi," rather than Moroni.
|think=
*Did you know that the first anti-Mormon book, ''Mormonism Unvailed'', published in '''1834''', referred to the angel as "Moroni?"
*Did you know that the reference to the angel as "Nephi" depended upon a single error that was copied?
|quote=
* ''Mormonism Unvailed'' - 1834, reprinted as ''History of Mormonism'' in 1840 [an anti-Mormon book]
<blockquote>
After he had finished translating the Book of Mormon, he again buried up the plates in the side of a mountain, by command of the Lord; some time after this, he was going through a piece of woods, on a by-path, when he discovered an old man dressed in ordinary grey apparel...The Lord told him that the man he saw was MORONI, with the plates, and if he had given him the five coppers, he might have got his plates again. (emphasis in original)
</blockquote>
* There are [[Moroni's_visit/Nephi_or_Moroni#Sources_which_mention_Moroni|many other early sources]] that use the correct name of "Moroni". Why doesn't MormonThink tell us about them?

|link=Moroni's visit/Nephi or Moroni
|subject=Nephi or Moroni
|summary=The Church teaches that Moroni was the heavenly messenger which appeared to Joseph Smith and directed him to the gold plates. Yet, some Church sources give the identity of this messenger as Nephi. Critics claim that this shows that Joseph was 'making it up as he went along.' In fact, a single misprint was reprinted a few times. But, earliest sources (even hostile ones) give the name as "Moroni".
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=A young Joseph, an amazing vision, the birth of Mormonism - it all started with a great revival. Joseph Smith gave a vivid description of the revival that took place in his boyhood town of Palmyra, New York....This revival made a big impression on Joseph Smith, but what kind of mark did it leave in history? Could we pinpoint the place and date of this event and verify that it really happened? Would church records for the years immediately before and after a revival, show a sudden jump in church memberships telling us exactly when this took place? What if we found the actual records but there was no evidence of a revival?
|think=
*{{Antispeak|beg the question}}
* Where's the "vivid description" that MormonThink talks about? Joseph hardly ''describes'' the religious excitement at all, he merely says that it was there and that it made a large impression on him.
* MormonThink is begging the question: they are assuming what they want to prove. They are calling these events "a revival," when Joseph never called them by that term.
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious revivals in 1820
|subject=Were there revivals in 1820?
|summary=Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it"
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Methodist camp meetings
|subject2=Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area
|summary2=Critics claim that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Multiple sources revealed evidence of a great religious excitement, with big gains in church membership for all the denominations mentioned by Joseph. But, instead of the revival beginning in 1820, it started in the autumn of 1824 and continued into the spring of 1825.
|think=
* This is irrelevant. There was a revival in 1824-25, but there was also religious excitement and camp meetings in the correct time and place for Joseph's account.
*MormonThink is relying upon an old and discredited chronology popular with anti-Mormon sources.
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious revivals in 1820
|subject=Were there revivals in 1820?
|summary=Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it"
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Methodist camp meetings
|subject2=Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area
|summary2=Critics claim that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The second detail was Joseph Smith's statement that the revival took place "sometime in the second year after our removal to Manchester" (PGP/JS History 1:5). Research into existing tax records and property assessments indicate the most likely date for the Smith family's move onto their Manchester farm is 1822. A revival occurring in the second year after 1822 fits the 1824 revival date (Inventing, pp. 7-8).
|think=
* MormonThink is here citing a well-known anti-Mormon work, {{CriticalWork:Marquardt Walters:Inventing Mormonism|pages=7-8}}
* The U.S. Census Bureau listed the Smiths in Farmington (now Manchester) in 1820. The Smith farm, clearing the land and a log house, all supported evidence that the Smiths, and most everyone else, considered themselves in Manchester, even though they technically lived about 59 feet off their property (in Palmyra). Legal U.S. documents now considered the Smiths in Farmington (later called Manchester) even though, technically, the log house was 59 feet away on the Palmyra side of the line.
* MormonThink is not up to date, and is not citing all the documents. Why do you suppose that is?
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Smith family place of residence in 1820
|subject=Smith family place of residence in 1820
|summary=Critics claim that there are discrepancies in Joseph's account of his family's early history, which make his 1820 and subsequent revelations impossible, and that there is no evidence that the Smith family was in the Palmyra area in 1820 for the religious excitement and First Vision which Joseph reported.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=FAIR believes that there was some sort of revival in 1820. I guess it depends on how you define a revival. Some believe that an ad in the newspaper for a church camp meeting is a revival. The revival Joseph seems to be referring to that sparked his quest is more like the big revivals that started in 1824 where membership jumped dramatically.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|beg the question}}
*No, FAIR does ''not'' believe that there was some sort of revival in 1820. FAIR states, based upon newspaper data, that there were Methodist camp meetings being held in the Palmyra area. FAIR never states that there was a "revival." MormonThink has locked onto the idea of a "revival," despite the fact the Joseph himself never called the "excitement" a revival.
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious revivals in 1820
|subject=Were there revivals in 1820?
|summary=Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it"
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Methodist camp meetings
|subject2=Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area
|summary2=Critics claim that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Hyrum, Samuel, Katherine, and Joseph's mother, Lucy, became members of the Presbyterian church after one of these revivals but his father would not join because of some feelings engendered at Alvin's funeral. Thus, by implication, these family members joined near the time of Alvin's death [in November 1823]. Lucy Smith, in her account, indicated that she and several of her family became interested in joining with a church shortly after Alvin's death. This would indicate that they probably joined the Presbyterian church early in 1824.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
* This claim is false. The "Smith family" did not join the Presbyterian church; Joseph's mother and a few siblings did. Lucy discusses another group to which she was attracted after the First Vision. She and much of the family was inclined thereto: Joseph was not.
|quote=
* Lucy Mack Smith even reports what Joseph told her:

<blockquote>Shortly after the death of Alvin, '''a man commenced labouring in the neigbourhood, to effect a union of the different churches'' [note that this is not the Presbyterians], in order that all might be agreed, and thus worship God with one heart and with one mind. 

This scented about right to me, and I felt much inclined to join in with them; in fact, the most of the family appeared quite disposed to unite with their numbers; but Joseph, from the first, utterly refused even to attend their meetings, saying, "Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to meeting, or any of the rest of the family's; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods, and learn more in two hours, than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time." 

To gratify me, my husband attended some two or three meetings, but peremptorily refused going any more, either for my gratification, or any other person's. 

[p.91] During this excitement, Joseph would say, it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long, for we were mistaken in them, and did not know the wickedness of their hearts.{{ref|lucy.90.91b}} {{ea}}</blockquote>

* Lucy and some siblings were Presbyterian members, but this was ''prior'' to Joseph's First Vision:{{ref|lucy.74b}}
:[48] [Prior to Joseph Smith Sr. losing his farm in Vermont around 1802] I heard that a very devout man was to preach the next Sabbath in the Presbyterian Church; I therefore went to meeting, in the full expectation of hearing that which my soul desired—the Word of Life. When the minister commenced speaking, I fixed my mind with deep attention upon the spirit and matter of his discourse; but, after hearing him through, I returned home, convinced that he neither understood nor appreciated the subject upon which he spoke, and I said in my heart that there was not then upon earth the religion which I sought. I therefore determined to examine my Bible, and, taking Jesus and his disciples for my guide, to endeavour to obtain from God that which man could neither give nor take away. Notwithstanding this, I would hear all that could be said, as well as read much that was written, on the subject of religion; but the Bible I intended should be my guide to life and salvation. This course I pursued a number of years. At length I considered it my duty to be baptized, and, finding a minister who was willing to baptize me, and leave me free in regard to joining any religious denomination, I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance; after [p.49] which I continued to read the Bible as formerly, until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year....{{ref|lucy.48b}}
* MormonThink is confusing the two. They do not understand the documents well at all. Why not?
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|subject=Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|summary=Critics claim that since there was a religious revival in Palmyra, New York in 1824-25 which appears to match details of Joseph Smith's official Church history, he must have mistakenly mixed this event in with his narrative about what happened in 1820, and that the Prophet's mother joined the Presbyterian church after Alvin Smith died in late 1823. This contradicts Joseph's statement that she joined in 1820, thereby dating Joseph's First Vision to no earlier than 1823.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=In the first history of Mormonism from 1835 written under Joseph Smith's direction, it says that the night of September 1823 Joseph Smith began praying in his bed to learn "the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him." (LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Feb. 1835) How could that possibly make sense if Smith had already seen God face-to-face some three years earlier in 1820?
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
* This source does not say that Joseph Smith was trying to find out if there was a God.
* Joseph was seeking for:
# a full manifestation of divine "approbation" [or acceptance in the eyes of God, not in a God he doesn't already believe in] and
# for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist [a parenthetical aside rather than a question Joseph was asking], to have an assurance that he was accepted of [H]im [Joseph was seeking reassurance as to his own standing with God]."
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823
|subject=Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823?
|summary=Critics claim that according to a historical document published in Kirtland, Ohio in 1835 the Prophet Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in the year 1823. This text, therefore, provides evidence that Joseph Smith simply made up the story about the First Vision happening in the year 1820.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Records show that in June of 1828, Joseph Smith applied for membership in his wife's Methodist Church. He also joined Methodist classes taught there. (The Amboy Journal, Amboy, IL, details Smith's activity in the Methodist Church in 1828. April 30, 1879 p. 1; May 21, 1879 p.1; June 11, 1879, p.1; July 2, 1879 p.1.)
|think=
* The "records" are a late recollection by Hiel and Joseph Lewis; they do not say that Joseph "applied for membership." These are not church records (as one might assume from MormonThink's description) but a hostile recollection from some cousins of Emma Smith long after the fact.
* They say that the Methodist minister inscribed Joseph's name in the class book, and when the "official members" found out about this, they made certain that any association with Joseph was quickly severed.
* Did you know that Methodists required people to be investigators ("probationers") for at least six months prior to becoming members? How did Joseph Smith manage to do this in three days (which is how long the sources used by MormonThink says his name was in the class book)?
* Why doesn't MormonThink even mention [[Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches#Sources_which_contradict_the_critics|these sources]]?
|link=Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches/Methodist_membership_procedures_and_Joseph_Smith
|subject=Do Hiel and Jospeh Lewis' account match with claims that Joseph was a member of the Methodists?
|summary=A review of the requirements of Methodist membership (at least six months probation), the necessity of baptism, and rules about how lapsed members were to be handled all make the claim that Joseph was a Methodist implausible.
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith joined other churches
|subject2=Did Joseph join other churches contrary to commandment in vision?
|summary2=Critics charge that Joseph Smith joined the Methodist, Presbyterian, or Baptist churches between 1820 and 1830—despite the claim made in his 1838 history that he was forbidden by Deity (during the 1820 First Vision experience) from joining any denomination. Unfortunately for the critics, these late sources are contradicted by multiple sources that are much closer in time to the period in question.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Numerous changes to the first edition of the Book of Mormon were made for its 2nd edition.... of the nearly 4,000 alterations, some of them had to do with Joseph's evolving belief about the nature of God. Notice how these verses changed from indicating that Jesus was God the Father to Jesus being the Son of God.
|think=
* The addition of "the Son of" to four passages in 1 Nephi does not change the Book of Mormon's teaching that Jesus Christ is the God of Old Testament Israel. This concept is taught in more than a dozen other passages whose readings remain unchanged from the original manuscripts. For example:
|quote=
**"And ''the God of our fathers'', who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, ''the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'', yieldeth himself...as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up...and to be crucified...and to be buried in a sepulchre...." ({{scripture|1|Nephi|19|10}})
**"...he said unto them that ''Christ was the God, the Father of all things'', and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that ''God should come down'' among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth." ({{scripture||Mosiah|7|27}})
**"Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, ''who is the very Eternal Father''." ({{scripture||Mosiah|16|15}})
**"Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: ''Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?'' And Amulek said unto him: Yea, ''he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth'', and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last." ({{scripture||Alma|11|38-39}})
* There are many, many other examples: {{scripture|2|Nephi|25|12}}; {{scripture||Mosiah|3|8}}; {{scripture||Mosiah|13|28,33-34}}; {{scripture||Mosiah|15|1}}; {{scripture||Helaman|8|22-23}}; {{scripture||Helaman|14|12}}; {{scripture||Helaman|16|18}}; {{scripture|3|Nephi|11|10,14}}; {{scripture||Mormon|9|12}}; {{scripture||Ether|3|14}}; {{scripture||Ether|4|7}}; {{scripture||Ether|4|12}}.)
* It is simply illogical to conclude that Joseph Smith changed the four passages in 1 Nephi to conform to his supposed changing theological beliefs, but somehow forgot to change all the others.
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"the Son of"
|subject="the Son of" added to 1 Nephi 11:18, 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32, and 1 Nephi 13:40
|summary=Critics charge that the earliest edition of the Book of Mormon referred to Jesus as "God," but in later editions this was changed to "the Son of God." They cite this as evidence that Joseph Smith changed the Book of Mormon to conform to his changing beliefs about the Trinity. They claim Joseph was originally a solid Trinitarian (perhaps even a Modalist), and as he later began to teach that the Father and Son were two separate beings, he had to change the Book of Mormon to support his new doctrine.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Numerous changes to the first edition of the Book of Mormon were made for its 2nd edition. '''LDS leaders would have you believe it is all punctuation and grammar corrections but''' of the nearly 4,000 alterations, some of them had to do with Joseph's evolving belief about the nature of God. {{ea}}
|think=
*{{Antispeak|liars}}
* If "LDS leaders" are trying to get members to believe that all the Book of Mormon changes were "punctuation and grammar corrections," why do they publish statements like the following in the ''Ensign''?
<blockquote>"In a few places, however, Joseph Smith did intentionally add to the text to clarify a point. An illustration of this is the added words the son of in 1 Nephi 11:21, 32, and 13:40. The text would be correct with or without the additional words, but the addition helps the reader avoid misunderstanding." - {{Ensign|author=George Horton|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/12/understanding-textual-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon]|date=December 1983}}</blockquote>

|quote=
* "Some have alleged that these books of revelation are false, and they place in evidence changes that have occurred in the texts of these scriptures since their original publication. They cite these changes, of which there are many examples, as though they themselves were announcing revelation. As though they were the only ones that knew of them. Of course there have been changes and corrections. Anyone who has done even limited research knows that. When properly reviewed, such corrections become a testimony for, not against, the truth of the books....Now, I add with emphasis that such changes have been basically minor refinements in grammar, expression, punctuation, clarification. Nothing fundamental has been altered. Why are they not spoken of over the pulpit? Simply because by comparison they are so insignificant, and unimportant as literally to be not worth talking about. After all, they have absolutely nothing to do with whether the books are true." -{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1974/04/we-believe-all-that-god-has-revealed We Believe All That God Has Revealed]|date=May 1974|pages=94}}
* Once again, the crafty LDS leaders are hiding matters by publishing them in the official magazine, and then sending a copy to each home.
* Other Church-produced or -published sources include:
** "Intentional additions to improve clarity: The most dramatic instance of clarifying a text is found at 1 Nephi 11:18, 21, 32 and 13:40, where the words "the son of" have been added before the names God and "the Eternal Father." Joseph Smith personally made these corrections in the 1837 edition. Given the fact that these texts are clearly talking about Jesus, the Son of God, the addition of "the son of" was appropriate to give additional clarity for the reader." - {{Book:Cheesman:Keystone Scripture|pages=249|author=George A. Horton, Jr.|article=Book of Mormon—Transmission from Translator to Printed Text}}
**{{CTBoM1_1}}
**{{CTBoM21_1}}
**{{CTBoM22_1}}

|link=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"the Son of"
|subject="the Son of" added to 1 Nephi 11:18, 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32, and 1 Nephi 13:40
|summary=Critics charge that the earliest edition of the Book of Mormon referred to Jesus as "God," but in later editions this was changed to "the Son of God." They cite this as evidence that Joseph Smith changed the Book of Mormon to conform to his changing beliefs about the Trinity. They claim Joseph was originally a solid Trinitarian (perhaps even a Modalist), and as he later began to teach that the Father and Son were two separate beings, he had to change the Book of Mormon to support his new doctrine.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Originally the Doctrine and Covenants contained the Lectures on Faith, accepted as doctrine by Joseph Smith in 1835. The Fifth Lecture on Faith (I think these lectures were actually part of the D & C until the church removed them in 1920) specifically states that the Father is a spirit, that only Jesus has a body, and that the Holy Ghost is the Mind of the Father and the Son. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon promoted this as doctrine in 1835. Yet the whole foundation of the church rests on the reality of the 1820 first vision that proves a different Godhead.
|think=
*There is no documentary evidence that indicates exactly when Joseph Smith learned that God the Father had a glorified and perfected body of flesh and bone. And, despite our typical assumptions, there is also no indication that Joseph learned any such thing during his 1820 First Vision.
*Regardless of when this revelation was bestowed upon the Prophet, it cannot be established beyond doubt that he was responsible for the teaching about the "spirit" nature of God found in the main text of lecture #5. It may, instead, be true that the Prophet was involved in adjusting the lecture #5 text to conform with his earlier work on the translation of the Bible.
|quote=
|response=
|link=First Vision/The Father as Spirit vs. Embodied
|subject=Is the Father embodied or a spirit?
|summary=When the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was published in 1835 it portrayed God the Father as a personage of spirit whereas Jesus Christ was portrayed as a personage of tabernacle, or one having a physical body. Yet the official LDS First Vision story portrays the Father as a physical Being. Critics claim that this is evidence of an evolution of story; and that the evolution of this story is evidence of fraud.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Another potential evidence that Joseph Smith did not see the Father and the Son in 1820, to those who believe in the restoration of the Priesthood, is the fact that in the year 1832 Joseph Smith claimed to have a revelation which stated that a man could not see God without the Priesthood. This revelation is published as Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants.
|think=
*When D&C 84:21-22 is analyzed in context then an interpretation emerges that does not support the one proposed by the Prophet's critics. The relevant words read:
<blockquote>
[19] "And this greater [i.e., Melchizedek] priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. [20] Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, '''the power of godliness''' is manifest. [21] And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, '''the power of godliness''' is not manifest unto men in the flesh; [22] For without '''this''' no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."
</blockquote>
*The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness."{{ref|robinson1}} One of the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood is the bestowal of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (see {{s||DC|49|14}}). As the Lord explained in an 1831 revelation, "no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God" ({{s||DC|67|11}}).
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Doctrine and Covenants 84 says God not seen without priesthood
|subject=D&C:84 says God cannot be seen without priesthood
|summary=Critics argue that Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God in 1820 and also claimed that he received the priesthood in 1829. But in a text which he produced in 1832 ({{S||DC|84|21-22}}) it is said that a person cannot see God without holding the priesthood. Therefore, critics claim that Joseph Smith contradicted himself and this counts as evidence against his calling as an authentic prophet of God.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=It appears that The only thing Joseph Smith said that was perhaps really unique was that God the Father had a body of "flesh and bone". But who can say if he is correct or not?
Even if Joseph was the first person to propose something, it is very flawed logic to assume what he proposed is true or that he is a prophet for proposing it - especially when it can't be proven one way or another.

|think=
*Well, the interesting thing is that Joseph never said anything about the personages having "flesh and bone" in his accounts of his vision. That teaching came later.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Also, Joseph is often credited with being the first person to claim that there are three degrees of glory (which no one knows is right or wrong anyway). But this concept has also been around a long time. In 1784, Emanuel Swedenborg wrote a book called Heaven and Hell and Its Wonders about his visions of the afterlife. Swedenborg insisted: "There are three heavens," described as "entirely distinct from each other." He called the highest heaven "the Celestial Kingdom," and stated that the inhabitants of the three heavens corresponded to the "sun, moon and stars."
|think=
*Swedenborg was hardly the first theologian or thinker to suggest that heavenly rewards were not all identical, but graduated into degrees of glory. The discussion and debate about the fate of the righteous in heaven goes back to the earliest Christian centuries.
*The charge that Swedenborg was Joseph's source was not even mentioned by those who disliked both Joseph and Swedenborg, and knew both works. Elements in Joseph's schema are present in the Bible, but not present in Swedenborg's model. The claim of "similarity" rests on a few superficial similarities between Joseph and Swedenborg and the Bible—and ignores the many marked differences between them.
*Even if one is not inclined to grant Joseph Smith prophetic status, it seems far more plausible that his view of a three-tiered heaven derives from the New Testament, and not from Swedenborg.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Plan of salvation/Three degrees of glory/Swedenborg
|subject=Swedenborg
|summary=Critics claim that Joseph Smith derived the idea of "three degrees of glory" in the afterlife from Emanuel Swedenborg's book, ''Heaven and its Wonders and Hell From Things Heard and Seen'' (1758). Critics also claim that Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage was similar to Swedenborg's philosophy of "spiritual wifery."
*You can read the source here: [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Heaven_And_Hell ''Heaven and Hell or, Heaven and its Wonders and Hell''] (1905) by Emanuel Swedenborg, translated by John C. Ager
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The different versions of the First Vision. The following is as close to an official response from the LDS Church that we could find: Ensign Article See the January 1985 issue of The Ensign on the church's web site. The site does not allow a direct link to the article. You'll have to use the index, just cut and paste the following into your web browser: http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm Church Publications/Magazines/Ensign/1985/January
Joseph Smith's Recitals of the First Vision by Milton V. Backman, Jr.
|think=
*This is bizarre: You mean it doesn't allow ''this'' direct link?
<blockquote>
Milton Backman Jr., "[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision]," ''Ensign'', January 1985.
</blockquote>
*We found this by searching lds.org just like for any other article.
*Try Googling "Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision"—that ''also'' brings up a direct link to the article on lds.org as the first Google search result.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=It is obvious by the above statements by church leaders that the First Vision did not happen in the way the Church portrays. The church would have you believe that Joseph had the vision in 1820 and that it has always been the central part of the LDS faith. In fact the one, simple, plain truth that every member that joined the church should have known is that God the Father and Jesus Christ were separate beings. We take this for granted now but this wasn't firmly established until over 15 years after the event supposedly occurred.
|think=
* The separate nature of God and Christ was apparent from the very earliest LDS documents, such as the Book of Mormon.
* MormonThink plays a good trick the numbers--note that it is "over 15 years after the event supposedly occurred." Since the vision was in 1820 and the Church wasn't organized until 1830, ten of the fifteen years had already passed. Were future Mormons supposed to be learning Joseph's theology before he had even founded a church? So, MormonThink has already admitted that this was unmistakeable within 5 years of the Church's establishment.
* But, the earliest documents go back even further than that.
|quote=

* In 1829, the Book of Mormon was translated:

:The Book of Mormon also begins (1 Nephi 1:8-10) with Lehi's vision of God on his throne. One [Christ] followed by twelve others descends from God to speak with Lehi--thus, Jesus and the Father are here both separate, and the role of Christ in giving instructions to the prophet while the Father looks on and approves is followed, just as it was in Joseph's First Vision. Here too, Lehi is described as praying to "the Lord," and yet has a vision of both God the Father and Christ.

* Between June and October 1830, Joseph had dictated his revision (the "Joseph Smith Translation") to Genesis. Joseph's rendered {{s||Genesis|1|26|27}} as:

:And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so....And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. ({{s||Moses|2|26-27}}.)

* There can be no doubt that Joseph understood "in mine own image" to refer to a physical likeness, rather than merely a moral or intellectual one. The JST of {{s||Genesis|5|1-2}} reads

:In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; ''in the image of his own body'', male and female, created he them ({{s||Moses|6|8-9}}, emphasis added)

*Thus, by 1830 Joseph's revelations were clearly teaching a separation of the Father and Son, and insisting that both had some type of physical form which could be copied in the creation of humanity. (It is not clear, however, whether he understood the physical nature of the Father's body at this early date. He still, however, taught that [[Joseph Smith's First Vision/The Father as Spirit vs. Embodied|the Father was a distinct personage]] and entity with form that could be seen.)

* Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, also noted that other Christian denominations took issue with the new Church because of its teachings about God, noting that in 1830:

:the different denominations are very much opposed to us.... the Methodists also come, and they rage, for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle.{{ref|lucy.mack.smith.145}}

* All this is less than a year from the Church's organization. Some members may have not internalized these ideas, or may have been slow to abandon ideas about God rooted in two millennia of Christian history, but MormonThink's claim simply does not match the earliest documents.

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith's early conception of God
|subject=Joseph Smith's early conception of God
|summary=Critics claim that Joseph Smith initially taught standard Nicene trinitarianism. The early documents tell a different story, however.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Joseph recounted how the visitation of the angel Moroni happened on September 21, 1823. An interesting question - how is it that JS could remember the precise date of the angel's visit in 1823, but could not remember the precise date of God's appearance to him in 1820?
|think=
*Because he was 14 years old. He probably didn't even know the date.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=We can accept that Joseph wanted to fellowship with other believers in Christ even if he didn't believe their doctrine. So we don't have a problem if Joseph merely attended an occasional Methodist church service. Most of us involved with MormonThink don't think that this particular problem with the First Vision is as serious as some critics claim. However we are somewhat disturbed if he actually tried to officially join the Methodist Church as God specifically told him not to....Joseph was welcomed, not persecuted by the Methodists.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
*{{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
MormonThink has above quoted the ''Amboy Journal'' of 1879 in an attempt to prove that Joseph joined the Methodists in 1828. Why do they not report what the Methodists did to Joseph within ''three days'' of him attending?
|quote=
:...while he, Smith, was in Harmony, Pa., translating his book....that he joined the M[ethodist] [Episocpal] church. He presented himself in a very serious and humble manner, and the minister, not suspecting evil, put his name on the class book, the absence of some of the official members, among whom was the undersigned, Joseph Lewis, who, when he learned what was done, took with him Joshua McKune, and had a talk with Smith. They told him plainly that such a character as he was a disgrace to the church, that he could not be a member of the church unless he broke off his sins by repentance, made public confession, renounced his fraudulent and hypocritical practices, and gave some evidence that he intended to reform and conduct himself somewhat nearer like a christian than he had done. They gave him his choice, to go before the class, and publicly ask to have his name stricken from the class book, or stand a disciplinary investigation. He chose the former, and immediately withdrew his name. So his name as a member of the class was on the book only three days.--It was the general opinion that his only object in joining the church was to bolster up his reputation and gain the sympathy and help of christians; that is, putting on the cloak of religion to serve the devil in.{{ref|lewis.1}}

* Given that Lewis says he arranged Joseph's ouster from the group within three days as soon as he heard of it, and that most people assumed Joseph was only trying to "build his reputation," to "serve the devil in," despite coming "in a very serious and humble manner" this does not sound at all like he was "welcomed...by the Methodists."
* And, remember that this late recollection is the ''only'' mention of Joseph being a Methodist at all. [[Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches#Sources_which_contradict_the_critics|Several sources]] that are much earlier (from both friendly and hostile witnesses) assert that Joseph never joined a church.

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Persecution after the vision
|subject=Persecution after the vision?
|summary=Some claim that there is no evidence that Joseph or his family were persecuted because of the First Vision. They argue that this means that Joseph invented the story later.
|link2=Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches/Methodist_membership_procedures_and_Joseph_Smith
|subject2=Do Hiel and Jospeh Lewis' account match with claims that Joseph was a member of the Methodists?
|summary2=A review of the requirements of Methodist membership (at least six months probation), the necessity of baptism, and rules about how lapsed members were to be handled all make the claim that Joseph was a Methodist implausible.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=How do we know that it wasn't Satan (if he exists) that appeared to Joseph? Please read this insightful essay to see how Satan can appear as a Heavenly Being as described by Joseph Smith.
|think=
* {{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/brainvat/#H5''How do we know we are not brain in a vat, wired to a computer?'']
*The editors at MormonThink have spent a considerable amount of effort demonstrating the God really doesn't exist, but just to make sure every base is covered, they are going to suggest that it might have been ''Satan'' that appeared? If, of course, he exists. Any source will do as long as it leads to a disbelief in the Church, is that it?
* MormonThink has spent a great deal of time claiming that Joseph deceived people; now they want to turn around and claim he ''did'' see a vision, but it was satanic?
|quote=
|link=Moroni's visit/Angel of Satan
|subject=Moroni as an "angel of Satan"
|summary=Some critics have charged that Moroni, the resurrected prophet who gave the Book of Mormon plates to Joseph Smith, was really an angel of Satan.
|link2=Holy Ghost/Revelation from God or the devil
|subject2=Revelation from God or the devil
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=One of the best summaries and perhaps most plausible explanations for the various issues surrounding Joseph's First Vision, can be found in the last chapter of LDS Church Education System teacher Grant Palmer's book An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. After presenting an impressive series of well-documented arguments against the traditional version we've all been taught in the church, the author proposes a very plausible explanation: "After a mass exodus of high-ranking church leaders including several apostles, all three special witnesses of the BOM and three of the eight witnesses to the BOM, Joseph took to reestablishing his authority. He made many changes to the church including changing the name of the church. He began by attacking those who were circulating unsavory "reports" regarding "the rise and progress of the Church", then told a revised and more impressive version of his epiphany.
|think=
* MormonThink describes Palmer as an "LDS Church Education System teacher." Palmer was disfellowshipped and then left the Church. Why doesn't MormonThink tell us that?
*This argument is a reference to the Kirtland crisis of 1837–38. Warren Parrish was considered by some of the Saints to be the ringleader of the Kirtland crisis. It is, therefore, all the more interesting that it was this same Warren Parrish who acted as scribe in recording a First Vision recital given by the Prophet Joseph Smith on 9 November 1835. When Parrish's 1835 account of the theophany is compared to the 1838 account it becomes glaringly obvious that the story did not change over time, as the critics would like everyone to believe.
*But, Joseph didn't just write the experience down in 1835, ''he was telling other people about it.'' This had nothing to do with "reestablishing his authority" three years later.
*Why is Palmer the first person to figure this out? If apostles and the Book of Mormon witnesses were at odds with Joseph, surely they knew what story Joseph had been telling them all along? They were very close to him from the beginning, especially people like Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer. Why did ''none'' of these men notice what Palmer wants us to accept? Why did none of them say, "Hey, Joseph, you're changing your story?" Quite simply because he didn't, and so it didn't even occur to them. Otherwise, they'd have been quick to point it out.
|quote=
*From Joseph's journal:
<blockquote>
14 November 1835 • Saturday 
A Gentleman called this after noon by the name of Erastus Holmes of Newbury Clemon [Newberry, Clermont] Co. Ohio, he called to make enquiry about the establishment of the church of the latter-day Saints and to be instructed more perfectly in our doctrine &c I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old and also the visitations that I received afterward, concerning the book of Mormon, and a short account of the rise and progress of the church, up to this, date he listened verry attentively and seemed highly gratified, and intends to unite with the Church he is a verry candid man indeed and I am much pleased with him.
</blockquote>
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts/1838/Account modified to offset leadership crisis
|subject=1838 account modified to offset leadership crisis?
|summary=Critics claim that in 1838 Joseph Smith revised his personal history to say that his original call came from God the Father and Jesus Christ rather than an angel. His motive for doing this was to give himself a stronger leadership role because an authority crisis had recently taken place and large-scale apostasy was the result.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Now whenever we go out with missionaries (some of us actually still do that) as they teach the First Vision, it makes us wonder what really happened to Joseph? Did he see God the Father and Jesus or just Jesus or just angels and which of the many reported circumstances surrounding the First Vision actually occurred?
|think=
*We don't think that MormonThink's webmaster goes out with the missionaries any more.
*None of Joseph's accounts state that he saw ''just'' angels. One account states that in addition to the two personages, that he saw "many angels."
|quote=
*From Joseph's journal dated 9 November, 1835:
<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.
</blockquote>
*Then, just five days later on 14 November, 1835, Joseph wrote the following in his journal:
<blockquote>
I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old.
</blockquote>
*It is unlikely Joseph changed his story between the 9th and 14th of November. It is obvious that he interchangeably used the word "Angels" (Note the capitalization) and "personages."
*You may read the primary source here: [[Primary sources/Joseph Smith, Jr./First Vision accounts/1835]]
*Once again, no one in Joseph's day called him on the obvious "contradiction" that MormonThink wants us to accept. Why not? There was no contradiction to notice.
}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|bushman.41}}{{Book:Bushman:Rough Stone Rolling|pages=41}}
#{{note|bushman.40.41}}{{Book:Bushman:Rough Stone Rolling:Short|pages=40-41}}
#{{note|lucy.90.91}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors|pages=90-91}}
#{{note|lucy.74}} Note that Lucy quotes Joseph's report that his mother and four siblings were members of the Presbyterian faith prior to his vision in {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=74}}
#{{note|lucy.48}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=48}}
#{{note|lucy.90.91b}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=90-91}}
#{{note|lucy.74b}} Note that Lucy quotes Joseph's report that his mother and four siblings were members of the Presbyterian faith prior to his vision in {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=74}}
#{{note|lucy.48b}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=48}}
#{{note|robinson1}} "...godliness can be permanently, individually attained only through the ordinances of the holy priesthood. Nevertheless, 'godliness' or being like God can be attained temporarily in another way - by transfiguration. If the Holy Ghost enters into our physical bodies, so that for a moment we become one with the Spirit, then have been thus 'transfigured' to godliness, we are able to see the face of God and live." {{Book:Robinson Garret:Commentary on the D&C:3|pages=32-33}}
#{{note|lucy.mack.smith.145}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=145}}

Question: How can we tell if a modern revelation comes from God or Satan?

2012-12-13T09:55:08Z

MikeSantoy: /* Philosophy */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=Holy Ghost: source of revelation=
=={{Criticism label}}==

How can we tell if a modern revelation comes from God or Satan

=={{Conclusion label}}==
Moroni 7:13:
But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
*[http://lds.org/languages/additionalmanuals/preachgospel/PreachMyGospel___11_04_RecognizeTheSpirit__36617_eng_011.pdf''How Do I Recognize and Understand the Spirit?''] {{ref|Preach}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

===Philosophy===
How do we know the world is not an illusion?
[http://www.iep.utm.edu/brainvat/''How do we know we are not just a brain in a vat?'']
How do we know our life is not a dream?

We just don't believe any of that, we just take what our senses tell us.
Such questions are just meaningless.

===Consider what Joseph Smith told Brigham Young===
“''Tell the brethren to be humble and faithful and be sure to keep the Spirit of the
Lord, that it will lead them aright. Be careful and not turn away the still, small
voice; it will teach them what to do and where to go; it will yield the fruits of
the kingdom. Tell the brethren to keep their heart open to conviction, so that
when the Holy Ghost comes to them their hearts will be ready to receive it.
They can tell the Spirit of the Lord from all other spirits—it will whisper peace
and joy to their souls; it will take malice, hatred, strife and all evil from their
hearts, and their whole desire will be to do good''” (quoted in Juvenile
Instructor, 19 July 1873, 114)

Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley said:

“''That’s the test,
when all is said and done. Does it persuade one to do good, to rise, to stand tall, to do
the right thing, to be kind, to be generous? Then it is of the Spirit of God''. . . .
“''If it invites to do good, it is of God. If it inviteth to do evil, it is of the devil. . . . And if
you are doing the right thing and if you are living the right way, you will know in your
heart what the Spirit is saying to you.
“You recognize the promptings of the Spirit by the fruits of the Spirit—that which
enlighteneth, that which buildeth up, that which is positive and affirmative and uplifting
and leads us to better thoughts and better words and better deeds is of the Spirit of God''”
(Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, 260–61)

=== Elder Dallin H. Oaks stated: ===

“''[A person may have] a strong desire to be led by the Spirit of the Lord but . . . unwisely extends that desire to the point of wanting to be led in all things. A desire to be led by the Lord is a strength, but it needs to be accompanied by an understanding that our Heavenly Father leaves many decisions for our personal choices. Personal decision making is one of the sources of the growth we are meant to experience in mortality. Persons who try to shift all decision making to the Lord and plead for revelation in every choice will soon find circumstances in which they pray for guidance and don't receive it. For example, this is likely to occur in those numerous circumstances in which the choices are trivial or either choice is acceptable.
“We should study things out in our minds, using the reasoning powers our Creator
has placed within us. Then we should pray for guidance and act upon it if we
receive it. If we do not receive guidance, we should act upon our best judgment.
Persons who persist in seeking revelatory guidance on subjects on which the Lord
has not chosen to direct us may concoct an answer out of their own fantasy or
bias, or they may even receive an answer through the medium of '''false revelation'''''”
(“Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall,” Ensign, Oct. 1994, 13–14)

* This statement can apply to everyone, even to General Authorities as a voice of warning

===President Howard W. Hunter said===

“''Let me offer a word of caution. . . . I
think if we are not careful . . . , we may begin to try to counterfeit the true influence of the
Spirit of the Lord by unworthy and manipulative
means. I get concerned when it appears that
strong emotion or free-flowing tears are equated
with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit
of the Lord can bring strong emotional feelings,
including tears, but that outward manifestation
ought not to be confused with the presence of the
Spirit itself''” (The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter,
184)

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|Preach}} Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service (2004), pg.89 - pg. 102

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:FAIRwiki:New page template]]

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The First Vision

2012-12-13T09:48:59Z

MikeSantoy: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../|MormonThink]]
|author=Anonymous
|noauthor=
|section=The First Vision
|previous=[[../The Witnesses|The Witnesses]]
|next=[[../Polygamy|Polygamy]]
|notes=
}}
==A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "The First Vision"==

==== ====
{{Website response summary|date=7 May 2012}}

{{MormonThinkSummaryHeader|The First Vision}}
*That the First Vision "wasn't even known by church members until 1842," despite Joseph writing in his 1835 journal that he related the story to a man who happened to be visiting him, and despite a skeptical newspaper account describing how Mormon missionaries were teaching that Joseph had personally seen God in November of 1830.
*That local newspapers would have been interested enough in a 14-year-old's claim to have seen God to have published it.
*That earlier accounts of Joseph's vision written by Joseph himself are not "official," whatever that means.
*That Joseph's different accounts of the First Vision are "relatively ignored" by the Church, despite an [http://lds.org/study/topics/accounts-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng entire web page being devoted to them on lds.org] and various mentions in the ''Ensign'', including a [http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=66a205481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD statement by Gordon B. Hinckley].
*That Joseph embellished his vision story in 1838 to bolster his leadership during a time of apostasy, despite the fact that he told the same story to strangers visiting his house three years earlier in 1835.

==== ====
{{Website response label}}

==={{Subarticles label}}===

{{SummaryItem
|link=/Source quotes without commentary
|subject=Source quotes without critical commentary
|summary=If you would like to read all of the source quotes without wading through all of the "Critic's comments," "Apologetic rebuttals" and "Our Thoughts" sections, we present the critical web page as it would appear if ''only'' the source quotes were provided without any additional commentary. We also try to provide accurate references and direct links to the original source text rather than simply linking to other websites where you have to search for them.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The First Vision wasn't even known by church members until 1842, and even then it wasn't very important. Joseph said that he was persecuted for telling people that he had seen a vision. There is simply no evidence that Joseph told anyone about the vision until many years later and not until after the Book of Mormon was published. There are no accounts in the newspapers, by neighbors, preachers or even by the members of Joseph's own family. There is much evidence to indicate that the First Vision either never really happened or was very different than we've been taught.
|think=
* This is absurd. If no one knew about the vision "until 1842," why was a skeptical newspaper account describing how Mormon missionaries were teaching that Joseph had personally seen God in November of 1830? Not only had Church members heard that Joseph had seen God, but they were preaching it and a hostile press was ''writing about it.''
|quote=

*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).
*Report in a non-LDS newspaper that Mormon missionaries were teaching at least six of the beginning elements of the First Vision story (''Fredonia Censor'', vol. 11, no. 50, 7 March 1832).
* When the Rev. John A. Clark published his autobiography he mixed nine First Vision story elements together with the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and said that he learned them all in the Fall of 1827 from Martin Harris (John A. Clark, ''Gleanings by the Way'' [Philadelphia: W. J. and J. K. Simmon, 1842],---).

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|subject=No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|summary=Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time. Learn the facts here.
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No mention in non-LDS literature before 1843
|summary2=No mention of First Vision in non-LDS literature before 1843?
|subject2=No mention in non-LDS literature before 1843?|summary=There is no mention of the First Vision in non-Mormon literature before 1843. If the First Vision story had been known by the public before 1840 (when Orson Pratt published his pamphlet) the anti-Mormons “surely” would have seized upon it as an evidence of Joseph Smith’s imposture.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=James B. Allen, who served as assistant church historian, frankly admitted that the story of the first vision "was not given general circulation in the 1830's." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p.33). Dr. Allen makes some startling concessions in this article. He admits, for instance, 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...." Dr. Allen goes on to state that in the 1830's "the general membership of the Church knew little, if anything, about it."
|authorsources=
*Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, pages 29-45.
|think=
*That isn't exactly what James B. Allen said. He said that the story "at best" received "limited circulation."
<blockquote>
The fact that none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830s, 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.''' (emphasis added)
</blockquote>
* Why doesn't MormonThink quote any work done ''after'' 1966 on this point? Don't they realize that more documents or accounts may have been discovered?
|quote=

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/1830 statement about seeing "God"
|subject=Missionaries 1830 statement about Joseph seeing "God"
|summary=Critics have claimed that just because LDS missionaries were teaching around 1 November 1830 that Joseph Smith had previously seen “God” personally it cannot be assumed that this was a reference to God the Father since the Book of Mormon (completed ca. 11 June 1829) refers to Jesus Christ as “the eternal God” (title page; 2 Nephi 26:12). The argument is made that since this evidence indicates that Joseph Smith understood Jesus Christ to be “God” the statement by the missionaries may have simply meant that Joseph Smith had seen the Savior; not necessarily the Father.
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|subject2=No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|summary2=Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Why did Joseph Smith fail to mention his First Vision when he first wrote the church history in 1835? Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery wrote and published a history of the church that supposedly covered all of the important points related to its beginnings. However, Joseph Smith records a different story than the "official" one later published in 1842. In Joseph Smith's own 1835 published history of the church, he says that his first spiritual experience was in 1823 after a religious revival in Palmyra that same year.
|think=
*Because Oliver wrote the history, not Joseph. Oliver was writing at the request of WW Phelps, and responding as Phelps wrote him letters.
*Why doesn't MormonThink mention here that Joseph ''wrote an account of his First Vision in his journal in 1835''? Or an account in ''1832''? They quote a reference from the Tanner's which mentions it later on the webpage. Why not acknowledge it here?
*Did you know that Oliver wrote the two-part account of Joseph's vision as part of the Church history and not Joseph? Did you know that the first part published described exactly the conditions that led to the First Vision, including Joseph's age of 14, before describing the vision itself?
*Did you know that by the time that Oliver published the next part, that he said that he had made a mistake on the year, and changed it to '''three years later''' (age 14 to age 17) and then proceeded to describe Moroni's visit instead? Do you get the idea that Joseph told Oliver not to continue the first vision account that he had started to publish and to focus instead on Moroni's visit?
*Did you know that Oliver indicated that he had written records that he was using to create the history, and that those records likely included Joseph's 1832 journal account of the First Vision?
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts/Oliver Cowdery not aware of First Vision in 1834-35
|subject=Oliver Cowdery's 1834 account of the First Vision/Moroni's visit
|summary=Was Oliver Cowdery unaware of the First Vision as late as 1834–1835?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=[I]n the early 1800s having visions wasn't perceived to be all that uncommon. Even Joseph Smith's father claimed to have had a vision - namely the Tree of Life vision. People believed in magic, seer stones, divining rods, etc. and people claiming to have visions weren't seen as all that strange. Like much of Joseph's work, the first vision is strikingly similar to someone else's story.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
*Since visions were not uncommon, that kind of explains why Joseph didn't really mention it to many people, or why many people didn't pay much attention if he did.
*MormonThink can't have it both ways: it can't be both astonishing that no one remembered Joseph talking about his First Vision in early Palmyra, ''and'' that such things were regarded as common. They ''were'' seen as common (and somewhat disreputable) and so it is no surprise that no one local paid any attention to it at the time.
* Pastors of that day looked down on people who claimed to see God in a vision - such things were being discouraged.
*It was the vision of ''Moroni'' and the subsequent recovery and translation of the Book of Mormon that caused Joseph to realize that his path was different than others who had claimed to see visions. Therefore, Joseph emphasized that and only wrote the full account of his First Vision much later.
|quote=
* As Richard Bushman noted:
::The clergy of the mainline churches automatically suspected any visionary report, whatever its content...The only acceptable message from heaven was assurance of forgiveness and a promise of grace. Joseph's report of God's rejection of all creeds and churches would have sounded all too familiar to the Methodist evangelical, who repeated the conventional point that "all such things had ceased with the apostles and that there never would be any more of them."{{ref|bushman.41}}
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|subject=No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|summary=Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Since Joseph never told anyone about the vision, he wasn't persecuted. There is simply no evidence that he was ever persecuted for the First Vision....How strange that Joseph says that the neighborhood knew enough about it to persecute this obscure boy, but his own family hadn't heard about it at all. If Joseph's story had actually occurred and caused said excitement, someone would have mentioned it. No one did....God & Christ visit a young boy, and because of local gossip, he withheld that info from his family. And yet then he receives another visitation three years later from an angel, and immediately he tells his family? Why the inconsistencies?
|think=
*{{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
*Joseph never said that his vision caused "excitement." He described being persecuted for it:
:"Joseph did tell a Methodist preacher about the First Vision. Newly reborn people customarily talked over their experiences with a clergyman to test the validity of the conversion. The preacher's contempt shocked Joseph. Standing on the margins of the evangelical churches, Joseph may not have recognized the ill repute of visionaries. The preacher reacted quickly and negatively, '''not because of the strangeness of Joseph's story, but because of its familiarity'''. Subjects of revivals all too often claimed to have seen visions."{{ref|bushman.40.41}}
*MormonThink can't have it both ways: it can't be both astonishing that no one remembered Joseph talking about his First Vision in early Palmyra, ''and'' that such things were regarded as common (see above). They ''were'' seen as common (and somewhat disreputable) and so it is no surprise that no one local paid much attention to it at the time, other than to be scornful or dismissive if Joseph told them.
|quote=
* Joseph did not tell his family about Moroni until he was ''commanded'' to do so by the angel. Rather than being inconsistent, this reinforces the truthfulness of Joseph's account: he apparently wasn't inclined to tell everyone until he was directed to do so. Perhaps he had learned his lesson and was "once bitten, twice shy"?
* Why do you suppose MormonThink doesn't tell us this? It's right in Joseph's official history, and yet they act like his actions are completely mysterious. Do they not know the material at all, or are they hiding something intentionally?
: I shortly after arose from my bed, and, as usual, went to the necessary labors of the day; but, in attempting to work as at other times, I found my strength so exhausted as to render me entirely unable. My father, who was laboring along with me, discovered something to be wrong with me, and told me to go home. I started with the intention of going to the house; but, in attempting to cross the fence out of the field where we were, my strength entirely failed me, and I fell helpless on the ground, and for a time was quite unconscious of anything. The first thing that I can recollect was a voice speaking unto me, calling me by name. I looked up, and beheld the same messenger standing over my head, surrounded by light as before. He then again related unto me all that he had related to me the previous night, and commanded me to go to my father and tell him of the vision and commandments which I had received ([http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.48-49?lang=eng#47 Joseph Smith History 1:48-49]).

}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=If it really happened, why couldn't Joseph Smith tell a consistent story about such a powerful experience as meeting with God and Jesus Christ face-to-face?
How many people forget where they were when their first child was born? Or when they got their patriarchal blessing? Or their wedding night? How many forget who they were with and what happened? If we can remember details such as year, circumstance and those involved, why couldn't Joseph Smith consistently recall basic facts about his incredible First Vision?
|think=
*{{antispeak|mocking}} Note the characterization of Joseph's "powerful experience" and "incredible" First Vision.
*Joseph ''did'' remember consistently where he was and when it happened.
*How many of you forget the date of your anniversary? Or your dates of your kids' birthdays?
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=In Joseph Smith's first handwritten testimony of the first vision in 1832, he says he already knew all other churches were false before he prayed. Smith testified: "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."....Yet in the "official" story written years later by a scribe, it has Joseph Smith saying: "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."
|think=
*If you had come to the conclusion that mankind has apostatized from the true faith, and you suddenly found Jesus standing in front of you, wouldn't ''you'' ask Him if any of those churches was the correct one? Or would you simply tell Him, "never mind, I already figured it out for myself?"
*Besides, where is the inconsistency? How many churches did Joseph have immediate knowledge of? Three or four? Joseph determined that the churches with which he had direct experience did not adhere to the scriptures and that therefore mankind "had apostatized from the true and living faith." During his vision, he then asked the Lord which church was right, because it had not occurred to him that the Lord's church ''didn't exist anywhere on the face of the earth.'' It had never entered into his heart that ''all'' churches were wrong.
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Contradiction about knowing all churches were wrong
|subject=Contradiction about knowing all churches were wrong
|summary=In his 1832 account of the First Vision, Joseph Smith said, “I found [by searching the scriptures] 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.” But in the 1835 account he said, “I knew not who [of the denominations] was right or who was wrong.” Critics claim that thus counts as evidence that the First Vision story evolved over time.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are earlier versions of the First Vision story in Joseph Smith's own handwriting, but they are not considered "official" and are relatively ignored by the church. 
One thing is clear, the LDS Church does a great disservice to investigators of its claims by presenting Joseph Smith's 1838 account of his first vision as the only version of these events.
 
UPDATE:
From the church's official web site, there is an article that gives the church's point of view on why there are multiple accounts of the First Vision.

|think=
*{{Antispeak|doesn't count}} No, it isn't clear at all: Where does the Church claim that the 1838 account is the "only version" of these events?
*Oh wait....there's an "update" all the way near the bottom of the article. Why not just update the information being shown instead of stating things at the beginning of the article that are not true, then providing a small "update" at the end of the article that corrects it?
*Did you mean to say that these accounts are "relatively ignored" ''except'' when they are ''mentioned in the ''Ensign'' and on the official Church website lds.org''?
|quote=
<blockquote>
During a 10-year period (1832–42), Joseph Smith wrote or dictated at least four accounts of the First Vision. These accounts are similar in many ways, but they include some differences in emphasis and detail. These differences are complementary. Together, his accounts provide a more complete record of what occurred. The 1838 account found in the Pearl of Great Price is the primary source referred to in the Church. 
—[http://lds.org/study/topics/accounts-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng ''Accounts of the First Vision''], Gospel Study, Study by Topic, located on lds.org. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his sacred experience of 1820. Possibly he penned or dictated other histories of the First Vision; if so, they have not been located. 
—Milton Backman Jr., "[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision]," ''Ensign'', January 1985.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration.''
 
—Dennis B. Neuenschwander, “[http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=aec2515e04f5e110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ],” Ensign, Jan 2009, 16–22.
 
I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life. 
—Gordon B. Hinckley, [http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=66a205481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “‘God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear’,] ''Ensign'', Oct 1984, 2
</blockquote>
* There is also a ''massive'' list of statements available. How can MormonThink ignore ''all'' these?
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1910-1968)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1910-1968)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1910-1968)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1969-1978)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1969-1978)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1969-1978)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1979-1983)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1979-1983)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1979-1983)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1984-1989)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1984-1989)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1984-1989)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1990-1997)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1990-1997)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1990-1997)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1998-2003)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1998-2003)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1998-2003)
}}
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Oliver Cowdery's account in the 1834 "Messenger and Advocate" stated that the "first vision" occurred in 1823---not a word about an 1820 vision. Cowdery's account also related that Smith's interest in religion was sparked by the preaching of Methodist elder George Lane, rather than Smith's version which claimed that he was inspired by reading in the Bible at 14. Cowdery also stated that the date of the "religious excitement in Palmyra and vicinity" was in Smith's "17th year," which would have been 1823, rather than 1820.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
* MormonThink has not taken a close enough look at the available documents to understand the true nature of the criticism which they advocate.
* Oliver Cowdery did, in fact, know about the First Vision when he recorded his version of the history of the Restoration—he had physical possession of the Prophet's 1832 history.
* Cowdery's dating anomaly and confused reporting of facts likely occurred because the Prophet was extremely busy during this time period and did not have much of a chance for editorial oversight (Cowdery, in fact, was the editor).
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts/Oliver Cowdery not aware of First Vision in 1834-35
|subject=Oliver Cowdery's 1834 account of the First Vision/Moroni's visit
|summary=Was Oliver Cowdery unaware of the First Vision as late as 1834–1835?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are other contradictions which cast doubt on the "first vision," such as the Smith family joining the Presbyterian church AFTER God has supposedly told Joseph that all churches were corrupt
|think=

* This claim is false. The "Smith family" did not join the Presbyterian church; Joseph's mother and a few siblings did. Lucy discusses another group to which she was attracted after the First Vision. She and much of the family was inclined thereto: Joseph was not, and ''he'' was the one told not to join any of them.
|quote=
* Lucy Mack Smith even reports what Joseph told her:

<blockquote>Shortly after the death of Alvin, '''a man commenced labouring in the neigbourhood, to effect a union of the different churches'' [note that this is not the Presbyterians], in order that all might be agreed, and thus worship God with one heart and with one mind. 

This scented about right to me, and I felt much inclined to join in with them; in fact, the most of the family appeared quite disposed to unite with their numbers; but Joseph, from the first, utterly refused even to attend their meetings, saying, "Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to meeting, or any of the rest of the family's; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods, and learn more in two hours, than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time." 

To gratify me, my husband attended some two or three meetings, but peremptorily refused going any more, either for my gratification, or any other person's. 

[p.91] During this excitement, Joseph would say, it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long, for we were mistaken in them, and did not know the wickedness of their hearts.{{ref|lucy.90.91}} {{ea}}</blockquote>

* Lucy and some siblings were Presbyterian members, but this was likely ''prior'' to Joseph's First Vision:{{ref|lucy.74}}
:[48] [Prior to Joseph Smith Sr. losing his farm in Vermont around 1802] I heard that a very devout man was to preach the next Sabbath in the Presbyterian Church; I therefore went to meeting, in the full expectation of hearing that which my soul desired—the Word of Life. When the minister commenced speaking, I fixed my mind with deep attention upon the spirit and matter of his discourse; but, after hearing him through, I returned home, convinced that he neither understood nor appreciated the subject upon which he spoke, and I said in my heart that there was not then upon earth the religion which I sought. I therefore determined to examine my Bible, and, taking Jesus and his disciples for my guide, to endeavour to obtain from God that which man could neither give nor take away. Notwithstanding this, I would hear all that could be said, as well as read much that was written, on the subject of religion; but the Bible I intended should be my guide to life and salvation. This course I pursued a number of years. At length I considered it my duty to be baptized, and, finding a minister who was willing to baptize me, and leave me free in regard to joining any religious denomination, I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance; after [p.49] which I continued to read the Bible as formerly, until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year....{{ref|lucy.48}}
* MormonThink is confusing the two time frames. They do not understand the documents well at all. Why not?
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|subject=Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|summary=Critics claim that since there was a religious revival in Palmyra, New York in 1824-25 which appears to match details of Joseph Smith's official Church history, he must have mistakenly mixed this event in with his narrative about what happened in 1820, and that the Prophet's mother joined the Presbyterian church after Alvin Smith died in late 1823. This contradicts Joseph's statement that she joined in 1820, thereby dating Joseph's First Vision to no earlier than 1823.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Cowdery's statement that Smith had wondered, several years after the alleged "first vision," as to whether "a Supreme Being did exist";
|think=
* This sentence does not say that Joseph Smith was trying to find out if there was a God.
* Joseph was seeking for:
# a full manifestation of divine "approbation" [or acceptance in the eyes of God, not in a God he doesn't already believe in] and
# for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist [a parenthetical aside rather than a question Joseph was asking], to have an assurance that he was accepted of [H]im [Joseph was seeking reassurance as to his own standing with God]."
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823
|subject=Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823?
|summary=Critics claim that according to a historical document published in Kirtland, Ohio in 1835 the Prophet Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in the year 1823. This text, therefore, provides evidence that Joseph Smith simply made up the story about the First Vision happening in the year 1820. But, this misunderstands both the statement and the historical chronology.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=and the fact that as late as 1851, church publications such as the "Times and Seasons" were calling the angel that visited Joseph "Nephi," rather than Moroni.
|think=
*Did you know that the first anti-Mormon book, ''Mormonism Unvailed'', published in '''1834''', referred to the angel as "Moroni?"
*Did you know that the reference to the angel as "Nephi" depended upon a single error that was copied?
|quote=
* ''Mormonism Unvailed'' - 1834, reprinted as ''History of Mormonism'' in 1840 [an anti-Mormon book]
<blockquote>
After he had finished translating the Book of Mormon, he again buried up the plates in the side of a mountain, by command of the Lord; some time after this, he was going through a piece of woods, on a by-path, when he discovered an old man dressed in ordinary grey apparel...The Lord told him that the man he saw was MORONI, with the plates, and if he had given him the five coppers, he might have got his plates again. (emphasis in original)
</blockquote>
* There are [[Moroni's_visit/Nephi_or_Moroni#Sources_which_mention_Moroni|many other early sources]] that use the correct name of "Moroni". Why doesn't MormonThink tell us about them?

|link=Moroni's visit/Nephi or Moroni
|subject=Nephi or Moroni
|summary=The Church teaches that Moroni was the heavenly messenger which appeared to Joseph Smith and directed him to the gold plates. Yet, some Church sources give the identity of this messenger as Nephi. Critics claim that this shows that Joseph was 'making it up as he went along.' In fact, a single misprint was reprinted a few times. But, earliest sources (even hostile ones) give the name as "Moroni".
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=A young Joseph, an amazing vision, the birth of Mormonism - it all started with a great revival. Joseph Smith gave a vivid description of the revival that took place in his boyhood town of Palmyra, New York....This revival made a big impression on Joseph Smith, but what kind of mark did it leave in history? Could we pinpoint the place and date of this event and verify that it really happened? Would church records for the years immediately before and after a revival, show a sudden jump in church memberships telling us exactly when this took place? What if we found the actual records but there was no evidence of a revival?
|think=
*{{Antispeak|beg the question}}
* Where's the "vivid description" that MormonThink talks about? Joseph hardly ''describes'' the religious excitement at all, he merely says that it was there and that it made a large impression on him.
* MormonThink is begging the question: they are assuming what they want to prove. They are calling these events "a revival," when Joseph never called them by that term.
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious revivals in 1820
|subject=Were there revivals in 1820?
|summary=Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it"
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Methodist camp meetings
|subject2=Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area
|summary2=Critics claim that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Multiple sources revealed evidence of a great religious excitement, with big gains in church membership for all the denominations mentioned by Joseph. But, instead of the revival beginning in 1820, it started in the autumn of 1824 and continued into the spring of 1825.
|think=
* This is irrelevant. There was a revival in 1824-25, but there was also religious excitement and camp meetings in the correct time and place for Joseph's account.
*MormonThink is relying upon an old and discredited chronology popular with anti-Mormon sources.
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious revivals in 1820
|subject=Were there revivals in 1820?
|summary=Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it"
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Methodist camp meetings
|subject2=Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area
|summary2=Critics claim that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The second detail was Joseph Smith's statement that the revival took place "sometime in the second year after our removal to Manchester" (PGP/JS History 1:5). Research into existing tax records and property assessments indicate the most likely date for the Smith family's move onto their Manchester farm is 1822. A revival occurring in the second year after 1822 fits the 1824 revival date (Inventing, pp. 7-8).
|think=
* MormonThink is here citing a well-known anti-Mormon work, {{CriticalWork:Marquardt Walters:Inventing Mormonism|pages=7-8}}
* The U.S. Census Bureau listed the Smiths in Farmington (now Manchester) in 1820. The Smith farm, clearing the land and a log house, all supported evidence that the Smiths, and most everyone else, considered themselves in Manchester, even though they technically lived about 59 feet off their property (in Palmyra). Legal U.S. documents now considered the Smiths in Farmington (later called Manchester) even though, technically, the log house was 59 feet away on the Palmyra side of the line.
* MormonThink is not up to date, and is not citing all the documents. Why do you suppose that is?
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Smith family place of residence in 1820
|subject=Smith family place of residence in 1820
|summary=Critics claim that there are discrepancies in Joseph's account of his family's early history, which make his 1820 and subsequent revelations impossible, and that there is no evidence that the Smith family was in the Palmyra area in 1820 for the religious excitement and First Vision which Joseph reported.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=FAIR believes that there was some sort of revival in 1820. I guess it depends on how you define a revival. Some believe that an ad in the newspaper for a church camp meeting is a revival. The revival Joseph seems to be referring to that sparked his quest is more like the big revivals that started in 1824 where membership jumped dramatically.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|beg the question}}
*No, FAIR does ''not'' believe that there was some sort of revival in 1820. FAIR states, based upon newspaper data, that there were Methodist camp meetings being held in the Palmyra area. FAIR never states that there was a "revival." MormonThink has locked onto the idea of a "revival," despite the fact the Joseph himself never called the "excitement" a revival.
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious revivals in 1820
|subject=Were there revivals in 1820?
|summary=Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it"
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Methodist camp meetings
|subject2=Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area
|summary2=Critics claim that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Hyrum, Samuel, Katherine, and Joseph's mother, Lucy, became members of the Presbyterian church after one of these revivals but his father would not join because of some feelings engendered at Alvin's funeral. Thus, by implication, these family members joined near the time of Alvin's death [in November 1823]. Lucy Smith, in her account, indicated that she and several of her family became interested in joining with a church shortly after Alvin's death. This would indicate that they probably joined the Presbyterian church early in 1824.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
* This claim is false. The "Smith family" did not join the Presbyterian church; Joseph's mother and a few siblings did. Lucy discusses another group to which she was attracted after the First Vision. She and much of the family was inclined thereto: Joseph was not.
|quote=
* Lucy Mack Smith even reports what Joseph told her:

<blockquote>Shortly after the death of Alvin, '''a man commenced labouring in the neigbourhood, to effect a union of the different churches'' [note that this is not the Presbyterians], in order that all might be agreed, and thus worship God with one heart and with one mind. 

This scented about right to me, and I felt much inclined to join in with them; in fact, the most of the family appeared quite disposed to unite with their numbers; but Joseph, from the first, utterly refused even to attend their meetings, saying, "Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to meeting, or any of the rest of the family's; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods, and learn more in two hours, than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time." 

To gratify me, my husband attended some two or three meetings, but peremptorily refused going any more, either for my gratification, or any other person's. 

[p.91] During this excitement, Joseph would say, it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long, for we were mistaken in them, and did not know the wickedness of their hearts.{{ref|lucy.90.91b}} {{ea}}</blockquote>

* Lucy and some siblings were Presbyterian members, but this was ''prior'' to Joseph's First Vision:{{ref|lucy.74b}}
:[48] [Prior to Joseph Smith Sr. losing his farm in Vermont around 1802] I heard that a very devout man was to preach the next Sabbath in the Presbyterian Church; I therefore went to meeting, in the full expectation of hearing that which my soul desired—the Word of Life. When the minister commenced speaking, I fixed my mind with deep attention upon the spirit and matter of his discourse; but, after hearing him through, I returned home, convinced that he neither understood nor appreciated the subject upon which he spoke, and I said in my heart that there was not then upon earth the religion which I sought. I therefore determined to examine my Bible, and, taking Jesus and his disciples for my guide, to endeavour to obtain from God that which man could neither give nor take away. Notwithstanding this, I would hear all that could be said, as well as read much that was written, on the subject of religion; but the Bible I intended should be my guide to life and salvation. This course I pursued a number of years. At length I considered it my duty to be baptized, and, finding a minister who was willing to baptize me, and leave me free in regard to joining any religious denomination, I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance; after [p.49] which I continued to read the Bible as formerly, until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year....{{ref|lucy.48b}}
* MormonThink is confusing the two. They do not understand the documents well at all. Why not?
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|subject=Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|summary=Critics claim that since there was a religious revival in Palmyra, New York in 1824-25 which appears to match details of Joseph Smith's official Church history, he must have mistakenly mixed this event in with his narrative about what happened in 1820, and that the Prophet's mother joined the Presbyterian church after Alvin Smith died in late 1823. This contradicts Joseph's statement that she joined in 1820, thereby dating Joseph's First Vision to no earlier than 1823.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=In the first history of Mormonism from 1835 written under Joseph Smith's direction, it says that the night of September 1823 Joseph Smith began praying in his bed to learn "the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him." (LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Feb. 1835) How could that possibly make sense if Smith had already seen God face-to-face some three years earlier in 1820?
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
* This source does not say that Joseph Smith was trying to find out if there was a God.
* Joseph was seeking for:
# a full manifestation of divine "approbation" [or acceptance in the eyes of God, not in a God he doesn't already believe in] and
# for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist [a parenthetical aside rather than a question Joseph was asking], to have an assurance that he was accepted of [H]im [Joseph was seeking reassurance as to his own standing with God]."
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823
|subject=Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823?
|summary=Critics claim that according to a historical document published in Kirtland, Ohio in 1835 the Prophet Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in the year 1823. This text, therefore, provides evidence that Joseph Smith simply made up the story about the First Vision happening in the year 1820.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Records show that in June of 1828, Joseph Smith applied for membership in his wife's Methodist Church. He also joined Methodist classes taught there. (The Amboy Journal, Amboy, IL, details Smith's activity in the Methodist Church in 1828. April 30, 1879 p. 1; May 21, 1879 p.1; June 11, 1879, p.1; July 2, 1879 p.1.)
|think=
* The "records" are a late recollection by Hiel and Joseph Lewis; they do not say that Joseph "applied for membership." These are not church records (as one might assume from MormonThink's description) but a hostile recollection from some cousins of Emma Smith long after the fact.
* They say that the Methodist minister inscribed Joseph's name in the class book, and when the "official members" found out about this, they made certain that any association with Joseph was quickly severed.
* Did you know that Methodists required people to be investigators ("probationers") for at least six months prior to becoming members? How did Joseph Smith manage to do this in three days (which is how long the sources used by MormonThink says his name was in the class book)?
* Why doesn't MormonThink even mention [[Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches#Sources_which_contradict_the_critics|these sources]]?
|link=Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches/Methodist_membership_procedures_and_Joseph_Smith
|subject=Do Hiel and Jospeh Lewis' account match with claims that Joseph was a member of the Methodists?
|summary=A review of the requirements of Methodist membership (at least six months probation), the necessity of baptism, and rules about how lapsed members were to be handled all make the claim that Joseph was a Methodist implausible.
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith joined other churches
|subject2=Did Joseph join other churches contrary to commandment in vision?
|summary2=Critics charge that Joseph Smith joined the Methodist, Presbyterian, or Baptist churches between 1820 and 1830—despite the claim made in his 1838 history that he was forbidden by Deity (during the 1820 First Vision experience) from joining any denomination. Unfortunately for the critics, these late sources are contradicted by multiple sources that are much closer in time to the period in question.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Numerous changes to the first edition of the Book of Mormon were made for its 2nd edition.... of the nearly 4,000 alterations, some of them had to do with Joseph's evolving belief about the nature of God. Notice how these verses changed from indicating that Jesus was God the Father to Jesus being the Son of God.
|think=
* The addition of "the Son of" to four passages in 1 Nephi does not change the Book of Mormon's teaching that Jesus Christ is the God of Old Testament Israel. This concept is taught in more than a dozen other passages whose readings remain unchanged from the original manuscripts. For example:
|quote=
**"And ''the God of our fathers'', who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, ''the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'', yieldeth himself...as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up...and to be crucified...and to be buried in a sepulchre...." ({{scripture|1|Nephi|19|10}})
**"...he said unto them that ''Christ was the God, the Father of all things'', and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that ''God should come down'' among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth." ({{scripture||Mosiah|7|27}})
**"Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, ''who is the very Eternal Father''." ({{scripture||Mosiah|16|15}})
**"Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: ''Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?'' And Amulek said unto him: Yea, ''he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth'', and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last." ({{scripture||Alma|11|38-39}})
* There are many, many other examples: {{scripture|2|Nephi|25|12}}; {{scripture||Mosiah|3|8}}; {{scripture||Mosiah|13|28,33-34}}; {{scripture||Mosiah|15|1}}; {{scripture||Helaman|8|22-23}}; {{scripture||Helaman|14|12}}; {{scripture||Helaman|16|18}}; {{scripture|3|Nephi|11|10,14}}; {{scripture||Mormon|9|12}}; {{scripture||Ether|3|14}}; {{scripture||Ether|4|7}}; {{scripture||Ether|4|12}}.)
* It is simply illogical to conclude that Joseph Smith changed the four passages in 1 Nephi to conform to his supposed changing theological beliefs, but somehow forgot to change all the others.
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"the Son of"
|subject="the Son of" added to 1 Nephi 11:18, 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32, and 1 Nephi 13:40
|summary=Critics charge that the earliest edition of the Book of Mormon referred to Jesus as "God," but in later editions this was changed to "the Son of God." They cite this as evidence that Joseph Smith changed the Book of Mormon to conform to his changing beliefs about the Trinity. They claim Joseph was originally a solid Trinitarian (perhaps even a Modalist), and as he later began to teach that the Father and Son were two separate beings, he had to change the Book of Mormon to support his new doctrine.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Numerous changes to the first edition of the Book of Mormon were made for its 2nd edition. '''LDS leaders would have you believe it is all punctuation and grammar corrections but''' of the nearly 4,000 alterations, some of them had to do with Joseph's evolving belief about the nature of God. {{ea}}
|think=
*{{Antispeak|liars}}
* If "LDS leaders" are trying to get members to believe that all the Book of Mormon changes were "punctuation and grammar corrections," why do they publish statements like the following in the ''Ensign''?
<blockquote>"In a few places, however, Joseph Smith did intentionally add to the text to clarify a point. An illustration of this is the added words the son of in 1 Nephi 11:21, 32, and 13:40. The text would be correct with or without the additional words, but the addition helps the reader avoid misunderstanding." - {{Ensign|author=George Horton|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/12/understanding-textual-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon]|date=December 1983}}</blockquote>

|quote=
* "Some have alleged that these books of revelation are false, and they place in evidence changes that have occurred in the texts of these scriptures since their original publication. They cite these changes, of which there are many examples, as though they themselves were announcing revelation. As though they were the only ones that knew of them. Of course there have been changes and corrections. Anyone who has done even limited research knows that. When properly reviewed, such corrections become a testimony for, not against, the truth of the books....Now, I add with emphasis that such changes have been basically minor refinements in grammar, expression, punctuation, clarification. Nothing fundamental has been altered. Why are they not spoken of over the pulpit? Simply because by comparison they are so insignificant, and unimportant as literally to be not worth talking about. After all, they have absolutely nothing to do with whether the books are true." -{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1974/04/we-believe-all-that-god-has-revealed We Believe All That God Has Revealed]|date=May 1974|pages=94}}
* Once again, the crafty LDS leaders are hiding matters by publishing them in the official magazine, and then sending a copy to each home.
* Other Church-produced or -published sources include:
** "Intentional additions to improve clarity: The most dramatic instance of clarifying a text is found at 1 Nephi 11:18, 21, 32 and 13:40, where the words "the son of" have been added before the names God and "the Eternal Father." Joseph Smith personally made these corrections in the 1837 edition. Given the fact that these texts are clearly talking about Jesus, the Son of God, the addition of "the son of" was appropriate to give additional clarity for the reader." - {{Book:Cheesman:Keystone Scripture|pages=249|author=George A. Horton, Jr.|article=Book of Mormon—Transmission from Translator to Printed Text}}
**{{CTBoM1_1}}
**{{CTBoM21_1}}
**{{CTBoM22_1}}

|link=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"the Son of"
|subject="the Son of" added to 1 Nephi 11:18, 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32, and 1 Nephi 13:40
|summary=Critics charge that the earliest edition of the Book of Mormon referred to Jesus as "God," but in later editions this was changed to "the Son of God." They cite this as evidence that Joseph Smith changed the Book of Mormon to conform to his changing beliefs about the Trinity. They claim Joseph was originally a solid Trinitarian (perhaps even a Modalist), and as he later began to teach that the Father and Son were two separate beings, he had to change the Book of Mormon to support his new doctrine.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Originally the Doctrine and Covenants contained the Lectures on Faith, accepted as doctrine by Joseph Smith in 1835. The Fifth Lecture on Faith (I think these lectures were actually part of the D & C until the church removed them in 1920) specifically states that the Father is a spirit, that only Jesus has a body, and that the Holy Ghost is the Mind of the Father and the Son. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon promoted this as doctrine in 1835. Yet the whole foundation of the church rests on the reality of the 1820 first vision that proves a different Godhead.
|think=
*There is no documentary evidence that indicates exactly when Joseph Smith learned that God the Father had a glorified and perfected body of flesh and bone. And, despite our typical assumptions, there is also no indication that Joseph learned any such thing during his 1820 First Vision.
*Regardless of when this revelation was bestowed upon the Prophet, it cannot be established beyond doubt that he was responsible for the teaching about the "spirit" nature of God found in the main text of lecture #5. It may, instead, be true that the Prophet was involved in adjusting the lecture #5 text to conform with his earlier work on the translation of the Bible.
|quote=
|response=
|link=First Vision/The Father as Spirit vs. Embodied
|subject=Is the Father embodied or a spirit?
|summary=When the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was published in 1835 it portrayed God the Father as a personage of spirit whereas Jesus Christ was portrayed as a personage of tabernacle, or one having a physical body. Yet the official LDS First Vision story portrays the Father as a physical Being. Critics claim that this is evidence of an evolution of story; and that the evolution of this story is evidence of fraud.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Another potential evidence that Joseph Smith did not see the Father and the Son in 1820, to those who believe in the restoration of the Priesthood, is the fact that in the year 1832 Joseph Smith claimed to have a revelation which stated that a man could not see God without the Priesthood. This revelation is published as Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants.
|think=
*When D&C 84:21-22 is analyzed in context then an interpretation emerges that does not support the one proposed by the Prophet's critics. The relevant words read:
<blockquote>
[19] "And this greater [i.e., Melchizedek] priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. [20] Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, '''the power of godliness''' is manifest. [21] And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, '''the power of godliness''' is not manifest unto men in the flesh; [22] For without '''this''' no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."
</blockquote>
*The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness."{{ref|robinson1}} One of the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood is the bestowal of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (see {{s||DC|49|14}}). As the Lord explained in an 1831 revelation, "no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God" ({{s||DC|67|11}}).
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Doctrine and Covenants 84 says God not seen without priesthood
|subject=D&C:84 says God cannot be seen without priesthood
|summary=Critics argue that Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God in 1820 and also claimed that he received the priesthood in 1829. But in a text which he produced in 1832 ({{S||DC|84|21-22}}) it is said that a person cannot see God without holding the priesthood. Therefore, critics claim that Joseph Smith contradicted himself and this counts as evidence against his calling as an authentic prophet of God.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=It appears that The only thing Joseph Smith said that was perhaps really unique was that God the Father had a body of "flesh and bone". But who can say if he is correct or not?
Even if Joseph was the first person to propose something, it is very flawed logic to assume what he proposed is true or that he is a prophet for proposing it - especially when it can't be proven one way or another.

|think=
*Well, the interesting thing is that Joseph never said anything about the personages having "flesh and bone" in his accounts of his vision. That teaching came later.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Also, Joseph is often credited with being the first person to claim that there are three degrees of glory (which no one knows is right or wrong anyway). But this concept has also been around a long time. In 1784, Emanuel Swedenborg wrote a book called Heaven and Hell and Its Wonders about his visions of the afterlife. Swedenborg insisted: "There are three heavens," described as "entirely distinct from each other." He called the highest heaven "the Celestial Kingdom," and stated that the inhabitants of the three heavens corresponded to the "sun, moon and stars."
|think=
*Swedenborg was hardly the first theologian or thinker to suggest that heavenly rewards were not all identical, but graduated into degrees of glory. The discussion and debate about the fate of the righteous in heaven goes back to the earliest Christian centuries.
*The charge that Swedenborg was Joseph's source was not even mentioned by those who disliked both Joseph and Swedenborg, and knew both works. Elements in Joseph's schema are present in the Bible, but not present in Swedenborg's model. The claim of "similarity" rests on a few superficial similarities between Joseph and Swedenborg and the Bible—and ignores the many marked differences between them.
*Even if one is not inclined to grant Joseph Smith prophetic status, it seems far more plausible that his view of a three-tiered heaven derives from the New Testament, and not from Swedenborg.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Plan of salvation/Three degrees of glory/Swedenborg
|subject=Swedenborg
|summary=Critics claim that Joseph Smith derived the idea of "three degrees of glory" in the afterlife from Emanuel Swedenborg's book, ''Heaven and its Wonders and Hell From Things Heard and Seen'' (1758). Critics also claim that Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage was similar to Swedenborg's philosophy of "spiritual wifery."
*You can read the source here: [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Heaven_And_Hell ''Heaven and Hell or, Heaven and its Wonders and Hell''] (1905) by Emanuel Swedenborg, translated by John C. Ager
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The different versions of the First Vision. The following is as close to an official response from the LDS Church that we could find: Ensign Article See the January 1985 issue of The Ensign on the church's web site. The site does not allow a direct link to the article. You'll have to use the index, just cut and paste the following into your web browser: http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm Church Publications/Magazines/Ensign/1985/January
Joseph Smith's Recitals of the First Vision by Milton V. Backman, Jr.
|think=
*This is bizarre: You mean it doesn't allow ''this'' direct link?
<blockquote>
Milton Backman Jr., "[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision]," ''Ensign'', January 1985.
</blockquote>
*We found this by searching lds.org just like for any other article.
*Try Googling "Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision"—that ''also'' brings up a direct link to the article on lds.org as the first Google search result.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=It is obvious by the above statements by church leaders that the First Vision did not happen in the way the Church portrays. The church would have you believe that Joseph had the vision in 1820 and that it has always been the central part of the LDS faith. In fact the one, simple, plain truth that every member that joined the church should have known is that God the Father and Jesus Christ were separate beings. We take this for granted now but this wasn't firmly established until over 15 years after the event supposedly occurred.
|think=
* The separate nature of God and Christ was apparent from the very earliest LDS documents, such as the Book of Mormon.
* MormonThink plays a good trick the numbers--note that it is "over 15 years after the event supposedly occurred." Since the vision was in 1820 and the Church wasn't organized until 1830, ten of the fifteen years had already passed. Were future Mormons supposed to be learning Joseph's theology before he had even founded a church? So, MormonThink has already admitted that this was unmistakeable within 5 years of the Church's establishment.
* But, the earliest documents go back even further than that.
|quote=

* In 1829, the Book of Mormon was translated:

:The Book of Mormon also begins (1 Nephi 1:8-10) with Lehi's vision of God on his throne. One [Christ] followed by twelve others descends from God to speak with Lehi--thus, Jesus and the Father are here both separate, and the role of Christ in giving instructions to the prophet while the Father looks on and approves is followed, just as it was in Joseph's First Vision. Here too, Lehi is described as praying to "the Lord," and yet has a vision of both God the Father and Christ.

* Between June and October 1830, Joseph had dictated his revision (the "Joseph Smith Translation") to Genesis. Joseph's rendered {{s||Genesis|1|26|27}} as:

:And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so....And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. ({{s||Moses|2|26-27}}.)

* There can be no doubt that Joseph understood "in mine own image" to refer to a physical likeness, rather than merely a moral or intellectual one. The JST of {{s||Genesis|5|1-2}} reads

:In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; ''in the image of his own body'', male and female, created he them ({{s||Moses|6|8-9}}, emphasis added)

*Thus, by 1830 Joseph's revelations were clearly teaching a separation of the Father and Son, and insisting that both had some type of physical form which could be copied in the creation of humanity. (It is not clear, however, whether he understood the physical nature of the Father's body at this early date. He still, however, taught that [[Joseph Smith's First Vision/The Father as Spirit vs. Embodied|the Father was a distinct personage]] and entity with form that could be seen.)

* Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, also noted that other Christian denominations took issue with the new Church because of its teachings about God, noting that in 1830:

:the different denominations are very much opposed to us.... the Methodists also come, and they rage, for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle.{{ref|lucy.mack.smith.145}}

* All this is less than a year from the Church's organization. Some members may have not internalized these ideas, or may have been slow to abandon ideas about God rooted in two millennia of Christian history, but MormonThink's claim simply does not match the earliest documents.

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith's early conception of God
|subject=Joseph Smith's early conception of God
|summary=Critics claim that Joseph Smith initially taught standard Nicene trinitarianism. The early documents tell a different story, however.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Joseph recounted how the visitation of the angel Moroni happened on September 21, 1823. An interesting question - how is it that JS could remember the precise date of the angel's visit in 1823, but could not remember the precise date of God's appearance to him in 1820?
|think=
*Because he was 14 years old. He probably didn't even know the date.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=We can accept that Joseph wanted to fellowship with other believers in Christ even if he didn't believe their doctrine. So we don't have a problem if Joseph merely attended an occasional Methodist church service. Most of us involved with MormonThink don't think that this particular problem with the First Vision is as serious as some critics claim. However we are somewhat disturbed if he actually tried to officially join the Methodist Church as God specifically told him not to....Joseph was welcomed, not persecuted by the Methodists.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
*{{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
MormonThink has above quoted the ''Amboy Journal'' of 1879 in an attempt to prove that Joseph joined the Methodists in 1828. Why do they not report what the Methodists did to Joseph within ''three days'' of him attending?
|quote=
:...while he, Smith, was in Harmony, Pa., translating his book....that he joined the M[ethodist] [Episocpal] church. He presented himself in a very serious and humble manner, and the minister, not suspecting evil, put his name on the class book, the absence of some of the official members, among whom was the undersigned, Joseph Lewis, who, when he learned what was done, took with him Joshua McKune, and had a talk with Smith. They told him plainly that such a character as he was a disgrace to the church, that he could not be a member of the church unless he broke off his sins by repentance, made public confession, renounced his fraudulent and hypocritical practices, and gave some evidence that he intended to reform and conduct himself somewhat nearer like a christian than he had done. They gave him his choice, to go before the class, and publicly ask to have his name stricken from the class book, or stand a disciplinary investigation. He chose the former, and immediately withdrew his name. So his name as a member of the class was on the book only three days.--It was the general opinion that his only object in joining the church was to bolster up his reputation and gain the sympathy and help of christians; that is, putting on the cloak of religion to serve the devil in.{{ref|lewis.1}}

* Given that Lewis says he arranged Joseph's ouster from the group within three days as soon as he heard of it, and that most people assumed Joseph was only trying to "build his reputation," to "serve the devil in," despite coming "in a very serious and humble manner" this does not sound at all like he was "welcomed...by the Methodists."
* And, remember that this late recollection is the ''only'' mention of Joseph being a Methodist at all. [[Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches#Sources_which_contradict_the_critics|Several sources]] that are much earlier (from both friendly and hostile witnesses) assert that Joseph never joined a church.

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Persecution after the vision
|subject=Persecution after the vision?
|summary=Some claim that there is no evidence that Joseph or his family were persecuted because of the First Vision. They argue that this means that Joseph invented the story later.
|link2=Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches/Methodist_membership_procedures_and_Joseph_Smith
|subject2=Do Hiel and Jospeh Lewis' account match with claims that Joseph was a member of the Methodists?
|summary2=A review of the requirements of Methodist membership (at least six months probation), the necessity of baptism, and rules about how lapsed members were to be handled all make the claim that Joseph was a Methodist implausible.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=How do we know that it wasn't Satan (if he exists) that appeared to Joseph? Please read this insightful essay to see how Satan can appear as a Heavenly Being as described by Joseph Smith.
|think=
* {{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/brainvat/#H5''How do we know we are not just a brain in a vat?'']
*The editors at MormonThink have spent a considerable amount of effort demonstrating the God really doesn't exist, but just to make sure every base is covered, they are going to suggest that it might have been ''Satan'' that appeared? If, of course, he exists. Any source will do as long as it leads to a disbelief in the Church, is that it?
* MormonThink has spent a great deal of time claiming that Joseph deceived people; now they want to turn around and claim he ''did'' see a vision, but it was satanic?
|quote=
|link=Moroni's visit/Angel of Satan
|subject=Moroni as an "angel of Satan"
|summary=Some critics have charged that Moroni, the resurrected prophet who gave the Book of Mormon plates to Joseph Smith, was really an angel of Satan.
|link2=Holy Ghost/Revelation from God or the devil
|subject2=Revelation from God or the devil
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=One of the best summaries and perhaps most plausible explanations for the various issues surrounding Joseph's First Vision, can be found in the last chapter of LDS Church Education System teacher Grant Palmer's book An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. After presenting an impressive series of well-documented arguments against the traditional version we've all been taught in the church, the author proposes a very plausible explanation: "After a mass exodus of high-ranking church leaders including several apostles, all three special witnesses of the BOM and three of the eight witnesses to the BOM, Joseph took to reestablishing his authority. He made many changes to the church including changing the name of the church. He began by attacking those who were circulating unsavory "reports" regarding "the rise and progress of the Church", then told a revised and more impressive version of his epiphany.
|think=
* MormonThink describes Palmer as an "LDS Church Education System teacher." Palmer was disfellowshipped and then left the Church. Why doesn't MormonThink tell us that?
*This argument is a reference to the Kirtland crisis of 1837–38. Warren Parrish was considered by some of the Saints to be the ringleader of the Kirtland crisis. It is, therefore, all the more interesting that it was this same Warren Parrish who acted as scribe in recording a First Vision recital given by the Prophet Joseph Smith on 9 November 1835. When Parrish's 1835 account of the theophany is compared to the 1838 account it becomes glaringly obvious that the story did not change over time, as the critics would like everyone to believe.
*But, Joseph didn't just write the experience down in 1835, ''he was telling other people about it.'' This had nothing to do with "reestablishing his authority" three years later.
*Why is Palmer the first person to figure this out? If apostles and the Book of Mormon witnesses were at odds with Joseph, surely they knew what story Joseph had been telling them all along? They were very close to him from the beginning, especially people like Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer. Why did ''none'' of these men notice what Palmer wants us to accept? Why did none of them say, "Hey, Joseph, you're changing your story?" Quite simply because he didn't, and so it didn't even occur to them. Otherwise, they'd have been quick to point it out.
|quote=
*From Joseph's journal:
<blockquote>
14 November 1835 • Saturday 
A Gentleman called this after noon by the name of Erastus Holmes of Newbury Clemon [Newberry, Clermont] Co. Ohio, he called to make enquiry about the establishment of the church of the latter-day Saints and to be instructed more perfectly in our doctrine &c I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old and also the visitations that I received afterward, concerning the book of Mormon, and a short account of the rise and progress of the church, up to this, date he listened verry attentively and seemed highly gratified, and intends to unite with the Church he is a verry candid man indeed and I am much pleased with him.
</blockquote>
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts/1838/Account modified to offset leadership crisis
|subject=1838 account modified to offset leadership crisis?
|summary=Critics claim that in 1838 Joseph Smith revised his personal history to say that his original call came from God the Father and Jesus Christ rather than an angel. His motive for doing this was to give himself a stronger leadership role because an authority crisis had recently taken place and large-scale apostasy was the result.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Now whenever we go out with missionaries (some of us actually still do that) as they teach the First Vision, it makes us wonder what really happened to Joseph? Did he see God the Father and Jesus or just Jesus or just angels and which of the many reported circumstances surrounding the First Vision actually occurred?
|think=
*We don't think that MormonThink's webmaster goes out with the missionaries any more.
*None of Joseph's accounts state that he saw ''just'' angels. One account states that in addition to the two personages, that he saw "many angels."
|quote=
*From Joseph's journal dated 9 November, 1835:
<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.
</blockquote>
*Then, just five days later on 14 November, 1835, Joseph wrote the following in his journal:
<blockquote>
I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old.
</blockquote>
*It is unlikely Joseph changed his story between the 9th and 14th of November. It is obvious that he interchangeably used the word "Angels" (Note the capitalization) and "personages."
*You may read the primary source here: [[Primary sources/Joseph Smith, Jr./First Vision accounts/1835]]
*Once again, no one in Joseph's day called him on the obvious "contradiction" that MormonThink wants us to accept. Why not? There was no contradiction to notice.
}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|bushman.41}}{{Book:Bushman:Rough Stone Rolling|pages=41}}
#{{note|bushman.40.41}}{{Book:Bushman:Rough Stone Rolling:Short|pages=40-41}}
#{{note|lucy.90.91}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors|pages=90-91}}
#{{note|lucy.74}} Note that Lucy quotes Joseph's report that his mother and four siblings were members of the Presbyterian faith prior to his vision in {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=74}}
#{{note|lucy.48}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=48}}
#{{note|lucy.90.91b}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=90-91}}
#{{note|lucy.74b}} Note that Lucy quotes Joseph's report that his mother and four siblings were members of the Presbyterian faith prior to his vision in {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=74}}
#{{note|lucy.48b}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=48}}
#{{note|robinson1}} "...godliness can be permanently, individually attained only through the ordinances of the holy priesthood. Nevertheless, 'godliness' or being like God can be attained temporarily in another way - by transfiguration. If the Holy Ghost enters into our physical bodies, so that for a moment we become one with the Spirit, then have been thus 'transfigured' to godliness, we are able to see the face of God and live." {{Book:Robinson Garret:Commentary on the D&C:3|pages=32-33}}
#{{note|lucy.mack.smith.145}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=145}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The First Vision

2012-12-13T09:27:58Z

MikeSantoy: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../|MormonThink]]
|author=Anonymous
|noauthor=
|section=The First Vision
|previous=[[../The Witnesses|The Witnesses]]
|next=[[../Polygamy|Polygamy]]
|notes=
}}
==A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "The First Vision"==

==== ====
{{Website response summary|date=7 May 2012}}

{{MormonThinkSummaryHeader|The First Vision}}
*That the First Vision "wasn't even known by church members until 1842," despite Joseph writing in his 1835 journal that he related the story to a man who happened to be visiting him, and despite a skeptical newspaper account describing how Mormon missionaries were teaching that Joseph had personally seen God in November of 1830.
*That local newspapers would have been interested enough in a 14-year-old's claim to have seen God to have published it.
*That earlier accounts of Joseph's vision written by Joseph himself are not "official," whatever that means.
*That Joseph's different accounts of the First Vision are "relatively ignored" by the Church, despite an [http://lds.org/study/topics/accounts-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng entire web page being devoted to them on lds.org] and various mentions in the ''Ensign'', including a [http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=66a205481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD statement by Gordon B. Hinckley].
*That Joseph embellished his vision story in 1838 to bolster his leadership during a time of apostasy, despite the fact that he told the same story to strangers visiting his house three years earlier in 1835.

==== ====
{{Website response label}}

==={{Subarticles label}}===

{{SummaryItem
|link=/Source quotes without commentary
|subject=Source quotes without critical commentary
|summary=If you would like to read all of the source quotes without wading through all of the "Critic's comments," "Apologetic rebuttals" and "Our Thoughts" sections, we present the critical web page as it would appear if ''only'' the source quotes were provided without any additional commentary. We also try to provide accurate references and direct links to the original source text rather than simply linking to other websites where you have to search for them.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The First Vision wasn't even known by church members until 1842, and even then it wasn't very important. Joseph said that he was persecuted for telling people that he had seen a vision. There is simply no evidence that Joseph told anyone about the vision until many years later and not until after the Book of Mormon was published. There are no accounts in the newspapers, by neighbors, preachers or even by the members of Joseph's own family. There is much evidence to indicate that the First Vision either never really happened or was very different than we've been taught.
|think=
* This is absurd. If no one knew about the vision "until 1842," why was a skeptical newspaper account describing how Mormon missionaries were teaching that Joseph had personally seen God in November of 1830? Not only had Church members heard that Joseph had seen God, but they were preaching it and a hostile press was ''writing about it.''
|quote=

*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).
*Report in a non-LDS newspaper that Mormon missionaries were teaching at least six of the beginning elements of the First Vision story (''Fredonia Censor'', vol. 11, no. 50, 7 March 1832).
* When the Rev. John A. Clark published his autobiography he mixed nine First Vision story elements together with the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and said that he learned them all in the Fall of 1827 from Martin Harris (John A. Clark, ''Gleanings by the Way'' [Philadelphia: W. J. and J. K. Simmon, 1842],---).

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|subject=No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|summary=Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time. Learn the facts here.
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No mention in non-LDS literature before 1843
|summary2=No mention of First Vision in non-LDS literature before 1843?
|subject2=No mention in non-LDS literature before 1843?|summary=There is no mention of the First Vision in non-Mormon literature before 1843. If the First Vision story had been known by the public before 1840 (when Orson Pratt published his pamphlet) the anti-Mormons “surely” would have seized upon it as an evidence of Joseph Smith’s imposture.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=James B. Allen, who served as assistant church historian, frankly admitted that the story of the first vision "was not given general circulation in the 1830's." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p.33). Dr. Allen makes some startling concessions in this article. He admits, for instance, 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...." Dr. Allen goes on to state that in the 1830's "the general membership of the Church knew little, if anything, about it."
|authorsources=
*Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, pages 29-45.
|think=
*That isn't exactly what James B. Allen said. He said that the story "at best" received "limited circulation."
<blockquote>
The fact that none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830s, 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.''' (emphasis added)
</blockquote>
* Why doesn't MormonThink quote any work done ''after'' 1966 on this point? Don't they realize that more documents or accounts may have been discovered?
|quote=

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/1830 statement about seeing "God"
|subject=Missionaries 1830 statement about Joseph seeing "God"
|summary=Critics have claimed that just because LDS missionaries were teaching around 1 November 1830 that Joseph Smith had previously seen “God” personally it cannot be assumed that this was a reference to God the Father since the Book of Mormon (completed ca. 11 June 1829) refers to Jesus Christ as “the eternal God” (title page; 2 Nephi 26:12). The argument is made that since this evidence indicates that Joseph Smith understood Jesus Christ to be “God” the statement by the missionaries may have simply meant that Joseph Smith had seen the Savior; not necessarily the Father.
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|subject2=No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|summary2=Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Why did Joseph Smith fail to mention his First Vision when he first wrote the church history in 1835? Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery wrote and published a history of the church that supposedly covered all of the important points related to its beginnings. However, Joseph Smith records a different story than the "official" one later published in 1842. In Joseph Smith's own 1835 published history of the church, he says that his first spiritual experience was in 1823 after a religious revival in Palmyra that same year.
|think=
*Because Oliver wrote the history, not Joseph. Oliver was writing at the request of WW Phelps, and responding as Phelps wrote him letters.
*Why doesn't MormonThink mention here that Joseph ''wrote an account of his First Vision in his journal in 1835''? Or an account in ''1832''? They quote a reference from the Tanner's which mentions it later on the webpage. Why not acknowledge it here?
*Did you know that Oliver wrote the two-part account of Joseph's vision as part of the Church history and not Joseph? Did you know that the first part published described exactly the conditions that led to the First Vision, including Joseph's age of 14, before describing the vision itself?
*Did you know that by the time that Oliver published the next part, that he said that he had made a mistake on the year, and changed it to '''three years later''' (age 14 to age 17) and then proceeded to describe Moroni's visit instead? Do you get the idea that Joseph told Oliver not to continue the first vision account that he had started to publish and to focus instead on Moroni's visit?
*Did you know that Oliver indicated that he had written records that he was using to create the history, and that those records likely included Joseph's 1832 journal account of the First Vision?
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts/Oliver Cowdery not aware of First Vision in 1834-35
|subject=Oliver Cowdery's 1834 account of the First Vision/Moroni's visit
|summary=Was Oliver Cowdery unaware of the First Vision as late as 1834–1835?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=[I]n the early 1800s having visions wasn't perceived to be all that uncommon. Even Joseph Smith's father claimed to have had a vision - namely the Tree of Life vision. People believed in magic, seer stones, divining rods, etc. and people claiming to have visions weren't seen as all that strange. Like much of Joseph's work, the first vision is strikingly similar to someone else's story.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
*Since visions were not uncommon, that kind of explains why Joseph didn't really mention it to many people, or why many people didn't pay much attention if he did.
*MormonThink can't have it both ways: it can't be both astonishing that no one remembered Joseph talking about his First Vision in early Palmyra, ''and'' that such things were regarded as common. They ''were'' seen as common (and somewhat disreputable) and so it is no surprise that no one local paid any attention to it at the time.
* Pastors of that day looked down on people who claimed to see God in a vision - such things were being discouraged.
*It was the vision of ''Moroni'' and the subsequent recovery and translation of the Book of Mormon that caused Joseph to realize that his path was different than others who had claimed to see visions. Therefore, Joseph emphasized that and only wrote the full account of his First Vision much later.
|quote=
* As Richard Bushman noted:
::The clergy of the mainline churches automatically suspected any visionary report, whatever its content...The only acceptable message from heaven was assurance of forgiveness and a promise of grace. Joseph's report of God's rejection of all creeds and churches would have sounded all too familiar to the Methodist evangelical, who repeated the conventional point that "all such things had ceased with the apostles and that there never would be any more of them."{{ref|bushman.41}}
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|subject=No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications
|summary=Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Since Joseph never told anyone about the vision, he wasn't persecuted. There is simply no evidence that he was ever persecuted for the First Vision....How strange that Joseph says that the neighborhood knew enough about it to persecute this obscure boy, but his own family hadn't heard about it at all. If Joseph's story had actually occurred and caused said excitement, someone would have mentioned it. No one did....God & Christ visit a young boy, and because of local gossip, he withheld that info from his family. And yet then he receives another visitation three years later from an angel, and immediately he tells his family? Why the inconsistencies?
|think=
*{{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
*Joseph never said that his vision caused "excitement." He described being persecuted for it:
:"Joseph did tell a Methodist preacher about the First Vision. Newly reborn people customarily talked over their experiences with a clergyman to test the validity of the conversion. The preacher's contempt shocked Joseph. Standing on the margins of the evangelical churches, Joseph may not have recognized the ill repute of visionaries. The preacher reacted quickly and negatively, '''not because of the strangeness of Joseph's story, but because of its familiarity'''. Subjects of revivals all too often claimed to have seen visions."{{ref|bushman.40.41}}
*MormonThink can't have it both ways: it can't be both astonishing that no one remembered Joseph talking about his First Vision in early Palmyra, ''and'' that such things were regarded as common (see above). They ''were'' seen as common (and somewhat disreputable) and so it is no surprise that no one local paid much attention to it at the time, other than to be scornful or dismissive if Joseph told them.
|quote=
* Joseph did not tell his family about Moroni until he was ''commanded'' to do so by the angel. Rather than being inconsistent, this reinforces the truthfulness of Joseph's account: he apparently wasn't inclined to tell everyone until he was directed to do so. Perhaps he had learned his lesson and was "once bitten, twice shy"?
* Why do you suppose MormonThink doesn't tell us this? It's right in Joseph's official history, and yet they act like his actions are completely mysterious. Do they not know the material at all, or are they hiding something intentionally?
: I shortly after arose from my bed, and, as usual, went to the necessary labors of the day; but, in attempting to work as at other times, I found my strength so exhausted as to render me entirely unable. My father, who was laboring along with me, discovered something to be wrong with me, and told me to go home. I started with the intention of going to the house; but, in attempting to cross the fence out of the field where we were, my strength entirely failed me, and I fell helpless on the ground, and for a time was quite unconscious of anything. The first thing that I can recollect was a voice speaking unto me, calling me by name. I looked up, and beheld the same messenger standing over my head, surrounded by light as before. He then again related unto me all that he had related to me the previous night, and commanded me to go to my father and tell him of the vision and commandments which I had received ([http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.48-49?lang=eng#47 Joseph Smith History 1:48-49]).

}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=If it really happened, why couldn't Joseph Smith tell a consistent story about such a powerful experience as meeting with God and Jesus Christ face-to-face?
How many people forget where they were when their first child was born? Or when they got their patriarchal blessing? Or their wedding night? How many forget who they were with and what happened? If we can remember details such as year, circumstance and those involved, why couldn't Joseph Smith consistently recall basic facts about his incredible First Vision?
|think=
*{{antispeak|mocking}} Note the characterization of Joseph's "powerful experience" and "incredible" First Vision.
*Joseph ''did'' remember consistently where he was and when it happened.
*How many of you forget the date of your anniversary? Or your dates of your kids' birthdays?
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=In Joseph Smith's first handwritten testimony of the first vision in 1832, he says he already knew all other churches were false before he prayed. Smith testified: "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."....Yet in the "official" story written years later by a scribe, it has Joseph Smith saying: "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."
|think=
*If you had come to the conclusion that mankind has apostatized from the true faith, and you suddenly found Jesus standing in front of you, wouldn't ''you'' ask Him if any of those churches was the correct one? Or would you simply tell Him, "never mind, I already figured it out for myself?"
*Besides, where is the inconsistency? How many churches did Joseph have immediate knowledge of? Three or four? Joseph determined that the churches with which he had direct experience did not adhere to the scriptures and that therefore mankind "had apostatized from the true and living faith." During his vision, he then asked the Lord which church was right, because it had not occurred to him that the Lord's church ''didn't exist anywhere on the face of the earth.'' It had never entered into his heart that ''all'' churches were wrong.
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Contradiction about knowing all churches were wrong
|subject=Contradiction about knowing all churches were wrong
|summary=In his 1832 account of the First Vision, Joseph Smith said, “I found [by searching the scriptures] 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.” But in the 1835 account he said, “I knew not who [of the denominations] was right or who was wrong.” Critics claim that thus counts as evidence that the First Vision story evolved over time.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are earlier versions of the First Vision story in Joseph Smith's own handwriting, but they are not considered "official" and are relatively ignored by the church. 
One thing is clear, the LDS Church does a great disservice to investigators of its claims by presenting Joseph Smith's 1838 account of his first vision as the only version of these events.
 
UPDATE:
From the church's official web site, there is an article that gives the church's point of view on why there are multiple accounts of the First Vision.

|think=
*{{Antispeak|doesn't count}} No, it isn't clear at all: Where does the Church claim that the 1838 account is the "only version" of these events?
*Oh wait....there's an "update" all the way near the bottom of the article. Why not just update the information being shown instead of stating things at the beginning of the article that are not true, then providing a small "update" at the end of the article that corrects it?
*Did you mean to say that these accounts are "relatively ignored" ''except'' when they are ''mentioned in the ''Ensign'' and on the official Church website lds.org''?
|quote=
<blockquote>
During a 10-year period (1832–42), Joseph Smith wrote or dictated at least four accounts of the First Vision. These accounts are similar in many ways, but they include some differences in emphasis and detail. These differences are complementary. Together, his accounts provide a more complete record of what occurred. The 1838 account found in the Pearl of Great Price is the primary source referred to in the Church. 
—[http://lds.org/study/topics/accounts-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng ''Accounts of the First Vision''], Gospel Study, Study by Topic, located on lds.org. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his sacred experience of 1820. Possibly he penned or dictated other histories of the First Vision; if so, they have not been located. 
—Milton Backman Jr., "[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision]," ''Ensign'', January 1985.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration.''
 
—Dennis B. Neuenschwander, “[http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=aec2515e04f5e110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ],” Ensign, Jan 2009, 16–22.
 
I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life. 
—Gordon B. Hinckley, [http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=66a205481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “‘God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear’,] ''Ensign'', Oct 1984, 2
</blockquote>
* There is also a ''massive'' list of statements available. How can MormonThink ignore ''all'' these?
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1910-1968)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1910-1968)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1910-1968)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1969-1978)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1969-1978)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1969-1978)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1979-1983)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1979-1983)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1979-1983)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1984-1989)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1984-1989)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1984-1989)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1990-1997)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1990-1997)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1990-1997)
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Church Hides Accounts (1998-2003)
|subject=LDS-Authored Publications (1998-2003)
|summary=Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1998-2003)
}}
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Oliver Cowdery's account in the 1834 "Messenger and Advocate" stated that the "first vision" occurred in 1823---not a word about an 1820 vision. Cowdery's account also related that Smith's interest in religion was sparked by the preaching of Methodist elder George Lane, rather than Smith's version which claimed that he was inspired by reading in the Bible at 14. Cowdery also stated that the date of the "religious excitement in Palmyra and vicinity" was in Smith's "17th year," which would have been 1823, rather than 1820.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
* MormonThink has not taken a close enough look at the available documents to understand the true nature of the criticism which they advocate.
* Oliver Cowdery did, in fact, know about the First Vision when he recorded his version of the history of the Restoration—he had physical possession of the Prophet's 1832 history.
* Cowdery's dating anomaly and confused reporting of facts likely occurred because the Prophet was extremely busy during this time period and did not have much of a chance for editorial oversight (Cowdery, in fact, was the editor).
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts/Oliver Cowdery not aware of First Vision in 1834-35
|subject=Oliver Cowdery's 1834 account of the First Vision/Moroni's visit
|summary=Was Oliver Cowdery unaware of the First Vision as late as 1834–1835?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are other contradictions which cast doubt on the "first vision," such as the Smith family joining the Presbyterian church AFTER God has supposedly told Joseph that all churches were corrupt
|think=

* This claim is false. The "Smith family" did not join the Presbyterian church; Joseph's mother and a few siblings did. Lucy discusses another group to which she was attracted after the First Vision. She and much of the family was inclined thereto: Joseph was not, and ''he'' was the one told not to join any of them.
|quote=
* Lucy Mack Smith even reports what Joseph told her:

<blockquote>Shortly after the death of Alvin, '''a man commenced labouring in the neigbourhood, to effect a union of the different churches'' [note that this is not the Presbyterians], in order that all might be agreed, and thus worship God with one heart and with one mind. 

This scented about right to me, and I felt much inclined to join in with them; in fact, the most of the family appeared quite disposed to unite with their numbers; but Joseph, from the first, utterly refused even to attend their meetings, saying, "Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to meeting, or any of the rest of the family's; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods, and learn more in two hours, than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time." 

To gratify me, my husband attended some two or three meetings, but peremptorily refused going any more, either for my gratification, or any other person's. 

[p.91] During this excitement, Joseph would say, it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long, for we were mistaken in them, and did not know the wickedness of their hearts.{{ref|lucy.90.91}} {{ea}}</blockquote>

* Lucy and some siblings were Presbyterian members, but this was likely ''prior'' to Joseph's First Vision:{{ref|lucy.74}}
:[48] [Prior to Joseph Smith Sr. losing his farm in Vermont around 1802] I heard that a very devout man was to preach the next Sabbath in the Presbyterian Church; I therefore went to meeting, in the full expectation of hearing that which my soul desired—the Word of Life. When the minister commenced speaking, I fixed my mind with deep attention upon the spirit and matter of his discourse; but, after hearing him through, I returned home, convinced that he neither understood nor appreciated the subject upon which he spoke, and I said in my heart that there was not then upon earth the religion which I sought. I therefore determined to examine my Bible, and, taking Jesus and his disciples for my guide, to endeavour to obtain from God that which man could neither give nor take away. Notwithstanding this, I would hear all that could be said, as well as read much that was written, on the subject of religion; but the Bible I intended should be my guide to life and salvation. This course I pursued a number of years. At length I considered it my duty to be baptized, and, finding a minister who was willing to baptize me, and leave me free in regard to joining any religious denomination, I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance; after [p.49] which I continued to read the Bible as formerly, until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year....{{ref|lucy.48}}
* MormonThink is confusing the two time frames. They do not understand the documents well at all. Why not?
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|subject=Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|summary=Critics claim that since there was a religious revival in Palmyra, New York in 1824-25 which appears to match details of Joseph Smith's official Church history, he must have mistakenly mixed this event in with his narrative about what happened in 1820, and that the Prophet's mother joined the Presbyterian church after Alvin Smith died in late 1823. This contradicts Joseph's statement that she joined in 1820, thereby dating Joseph's First Vision to no earlier than 1823.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Cowdery's statement that Smith had wondered, several years after the alleged "first vision," as to whether "a Supreme Being did exist";
|think=
* This sentence does not say that Joseph Smith was trying to find out if there was a God.
* Joseph was seeking for:
# a full manifestation of divine "approbation" [or acceptance in the eyes of God, not in a God he doesn't already believe in] and
# for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist [a parenthetical aside rather than a question Joseph was asking], to have an assurance that he was accepted of [H]im [Joseph was seeking reassurance as to his own standing with God]."
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823
|subject=Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823?
|summary=Critics claim that according to a historical document published in Kirtland, Ohio in 1835 the Prophet Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in the year 1823. This text, therefore, provides evidence that Joseph Smith simply made up the story about the First Vision happening in the year 1820. But, this misunderstands both the statement and the historical chronology.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=and the fact that as late as 1851, church publications such as the "Times and Seasons" were calling the angel that visited Joseph "Nephi," rather than Moroni.
|think=
*Did you know that the first anti-Mormon book, ''Mormonism Unvailed'', published in '''1834''', referred to the angel as "Moroni?"
*Did you know that the reference to the angel as "Nephi" depended upon a single error that was copied?
|quote=
* ''Mormonism Unvailed'' - 1834, reprinted as ''History of Mormonism'' in 1840 [an anti-Mormon book]
<blockquote>
After he had finished translating the Book of Mormon, he again buried up the plates in the side of a mountain, by command of the Lord; some time after this, he was going through a piece of woods, on a by-path, when he discovered an old man dressed in ordinary grey apparel...The Lord told him that the man he saw was MORONI, with the plates, and if he had given him the five coppers, he might have got his plates again. (emphasis in original)
</blockquote>
* There are [[Moroni's_visit/Nephi_or_Moroni#Sources_which_mention_Moroni|many other early sources]] that use the correct name of "Moroni". Why doesn't MormonThink tell us about them?

|link=Moroni's visit/Nephi or Moroni
|subject=Nephi or Moroni
|summary=The Church teaches that Moroni was the heavenly messenger which appeared to Joseph Smith and directed him to the gold plates. Yet, some Church sources give the identity of this messenger as Nephi. Critics claim that this shows that Joseph was 'making it up as he went along.' In fact, a single misprint was reprinted a few times. But, earliest sources (even hostile ones) give the name as "Moroni".
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=A young Joseph, an amazing vision, the birth of Mormonism - it all started with a great revival. Joseph Smith gave a vivid description of the revival that took place in his boyhood town of Palmyra, New York....This revival made a big impression on Joseph Smith, but what kind of mark did it leave in history? Could we pinpoint the place and date of this event and verify that it really happened? Would church records for the years immediately before and after a revival, show a sudden jump in church memberships telling us exactly when this took place? What if we found the actual records but there was no evidence of a revival?
|think=
*{{Antispeak|beg the question}}
* Where's the "vivid description" that MormonThink talks about? Joseph hardly ''describes'' the religious excitement at all, he merely says that it was there and that it made a large impression on him.
* MormonThink is begging the question: they are assuming what they want to prove. They are calling these events "a revival," when Joseph never called them by that term.
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious revivals in 1820
|subject=Were there revivals in 1820?
|summary=Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it"
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Methodist camp meetings
|subject2=Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area
|summary2=Critics claim that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Multiple sources revealed evidence of a great religious excitement, with big gains in church membership for all the denominations mentioned by Joseph. But, instead of the revival beginning in 1820, it started in the autumn of 1824 and continued into the spring of 1825.
|think=
* This is irrelevant. There was a revival in 1824-25, but there was also religious excitement and camp meetings in the correct time and place for Joseph's account.
*MormonThink is relying upon an old and discredited chronology popular with anti-Mormon sources.
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious revivals in 1820
|subject=Were there revivals in 1820?
|summary=Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it"
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Methodist camp meetings
|subject2=Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area
|summary2=Critics claim that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The second detail was Joseph Smith's statement that the revival took place "sometime in the second year after our removal to Manchester" (PGP/JS History 1:5). Research into existing tax records and property assessments indicate the most likely date for the Smith family's move onto their Manchester farm is 1822. A revival occurring in the second year after 1822 fits the 1824 revival date (Inventing, pp. 7-8).
|think=
* MormonThink is here citing a well-known anti-Mormon work, {{CriticalWork:Marquardt Walters:Inventing Mormonism|pages=7-8}}
* The U.S. Census Bureau listed the Smiths in Farmington (now Manchester) in 1820. The Smith farm, clearing the land and a log house, all supported evidence that the Smiths, and most everyone else, considered themselves in Manchester, even though they technically lived about 59 feet off their property (in Palmyra). Legal U.S. documents now considered the Smiths in Farmington (later called Manchester) even though, technically, the log house was 59 feet away on the Palmyra side of the line.
* MormonThink is not up to date, and is not citing all the documents. Why do you suppose that is?
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Smith family place of residence in 1820
|subject=Smith family place of residence in 1820
|summary=Critics claim that there are discrepancies in Joseph's account of his family's early history, which make his 1820 and subsequent revelations impossible, and that there is no evidence that the Smith family was in the Palmyra area in 1820 for the religious excitement and First Vision which Joseph reported.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=FAIR believes that there was some sort of revival in 1820. I guess it depends on how you define a revival. Some believe that an ad in the newspaper for a church camp meeting is a revival. The revival Joseph seems to be referring to that sparked his quest is more like the big revivals that started in 1824 where membership jumped dramatically.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|beg the question}}
*No, FAIR does ''not'' believe that there was some sort of revival in 1820. FAIR states, based upon newspaper data, that there were Methodist camp meetings being held in the Palmyra area. FAIR never states that there was a "revival." MormonThink has locked onto the idea of a "revival," despite the fact the Joseph himself never called the "excitement" a revival.
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious revivals in 1820
|subject=Were there revivals in 1820?
|summary=Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it"
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Methodist camp meetings
|subject2=Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area
|summary2=Critics claim that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Hyrum, Samuel, Katherine, and Joseph's mother, Lucy, became members of the Presbyterian church after one of these revivals but his father would not join because of some feelings engendered at Alvin's funeral. Thus, by implication, these family members joined near the time of Alvin's death [in November 1823]. Lucy Smith, in her account, indicated that she and several of her family became interested in joining with a church shortly after Alvin's death. This would indicate that they probably joined the Presbyterian church early in 1824.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
* This claim is false. The "Smith family" did not join the Presbyterian church; Joseph's mother and a few siblings did. Lucy discusses another group to which she was attracted after the First Vision. She and much of the family was inclined thereto: Joseph was not.
|quote=
* Lucy Mack Smith even reports what Joseph told her:

<blockquote>Shortly after the death of Alvin, '''a man commenced labouring in the neigbourhood, to effect a union of the different churches'' [note that this is not the Presbyterians], in order that all might be agreed, and thus worship God with one heart and with one mind. 

This scented about right to me, and I felt much inclined to join in with them; in fact, the most of the family appeared quite disposed to unite with their numbers; but Joseph, from the first, utterly refused even to attend their meetings, saying, "Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to meeting, or any of the rest of the family's; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods, and learn more in two hours, than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time." 

To gratify me, my husband attended some two or three meetings, but peremptorily refused going any more, either for my gratification, or any other person's. 

[p.91] During this excitement, Joseph would say, it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long, for we were mistaken in them, and did not know the wickedness of their hearts.{{ref|lucy.90.91b}} {{ea}}</blockquote>

* Lucy and some siblings were Presbyterian members, but this was ''prior'' to Joseph's First Vision:{{ref|lucy.74b}}
:[48] [Prior to Joseph Smith Sr. losing his farm in Vermont around 1802] I heard that a very devout man was to preach the next Sabbath in the Presbyterian Church; I therefore went to meeting, in the full expectation of hearing that which my soul desired—the Word of Life. When the minister commenced speaking, I fixed my mind with deep attention upon the spirit and matter of his discourse; but, after hearing him through, I returned home, convinced that he neither understood nor appreciated the subject upon which he spoke, and I said in my heart that there was not then upon earth the religion which I sought. I therefore determined to examine my Bible, and, taking Jesus and his disciples for my guide, to endeavour to obtain from God that which man could neither give nor take away. Notwithstanding this, I would hear all that could be said, as well as read much that was written, on the subject of religion; but the Bible I intended should be my guide to life and salvation. This course I pursued a number of years. At length I considered it my duty to be baptized, and, finding a minister who was willing to baptize me, and leave me free in regard to joining any religious denomination, I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance; after [p.49] which I continued to read the Bible as formerly, until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year....{{ref|lucy.48b}}
* MormonThink is confusing the two. They do not understand the documents well at all. Why not?
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|subject=Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians
|summary=Critics claim that since there was a religious revival in Palmyra, New York in 1824-25 which appears to match details of Joseph Smith's official Church history, he must have mistakenly mixed this event in with his narrative about what happened in 1820, and that the Prophet's mother joined the Presbyterian church after Alvin Smith died in late 1823. This contradicts Joseph's statement that she joined in 1820, thereby dating Joseph's First Vision to no earlier than 1823.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=In the first history of Mormonism from 1835 written under Joseph Smith's direction, it says that the night of September 1823 Joseph Smith began praying in his bed to learn "the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him." (LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Feb. 1835) How could that possibly make sense if Smith had already seen God face-to-face some three years earlier in 1820?
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
* This source does not say that Joseph Smith was trying to find out if there was a God.
* Joseph was seeking for:
# a full manifestation of divine "approbation" [or acceptance in the eyes of God, not in a God he doesn't already believe in] and
# for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist [a parenthetical aside rather than a question Joseph was asking], to have an assurance that he was accepted of [H]im [Joseph was seeking reassurance as to his own standing with God]."
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823
|subject=Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823?
|summary=Critics claim that according to a historical document published in Kirtland, Ohio in 1835 the Prophet Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in the year 1823. This text, therefore, provides evidence that Joseph Smith simply made up the story about the First Vision happening in the year 1820.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Records show that in June of 1828, Joseph Smith applied for membership in his wife's Methodist Church. He also joined Methodist classes taught there. (The Amboy Journal, Amboy, IL, details Smith's activity in the Methodist Church in 1828. April 30, 1879 p. 1; May 21, 1879 p.1; June 11, 1879, p.1; July 2, 1879 p.1.)
|think=
* The "records" are a late recollection by Hiel and Joseph Lewis; they do not say that Joseph "applied for membership." These are not church records (as one might assume from MormonThink's description) but a hostile recollection from some cousins of Emma Smith long after the fact.
* They say that the Methodist minister inscribed Joseph's name in the class book, and when the "official members" found out about this, they made certain that any association with Joseph was quickly severed.
* Did you know that Methodists required people to be investigators ("probationers") for at least six months prior to becoming members? How did Joseph Smith manage to do this in three days (which is how long the sources used by MormonThink says his name was in the class book)?
* Why doesn't MormonThink even mention [[Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches#Sources_which_contradict_the_critics|these sources]]?
|link=Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches/Methodist_membership_procedures_and_Joseph_Smith
|subject=Do Hiel and Jospeh Lewis' account match with claims that Joseph was a member of the Methodists?
|summary=A review of the requirements of Methodist membership (at least six months probation), the necessity of baptism, and rules about how lapsed members were to be handled all make the claim that Joseph was a Methodist implausible.
|link2=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith joined other churches
|subject2=Did Joseph join other churches contrary to commandment in vision?
|summary2=Critics charge that Joseph Smith joined the Methodist, Presbyterian, or Baptist churches between 1820 and 1830—despite the claim made in his 1838 history that he was forbidden by Deity (during the 1820 First Vision experience) from joining any denomination. Unfortunately for the critics, these late sources are contradicted by multiple sources that are much closer in time to the period in question.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Numerous changes to the first edition of the Book of Mormon were made for its 2nd edition.... of the nearly 4,000 alterations, some of them had to do with Joseph's evolving belief about the nature of God. Notice how these verses changed from indicating that Jesus was God the Father to Jesus being the Son of God.
|think=
* The addition of "the Son of" to four passages in 1 Nephi does not change the Book of Mormon's teaching that Jesus Christ is the God of Old Testament Israel. This concept is taught in more than a dozen other passages whose readings remain unchanged from the original manuscripts. For example:
|quote=
**"And ''the God of our fathers'', who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, ''the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'', yieldeth himself...as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up...and to be crucified...and to be buried in a sepulchre...." ({{scripture|1|Nephi|19|10}})
**"...he said unto them that ''Christ was the God, the Father of all things'', and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that ''God should come down'' among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth." ({{scripture||Mosiah|7|27}})
**"Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, ''who is the very Eternal Father''." ({{scripture||Mosiah|16|15}})
**"Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: ''Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?'' And Amulek said unto him: Yea, ''he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth'', and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last." ({{scripture||Alma|11|38-39}})
* There are many, many other examples: {{scripture|2|Nephi|25|12}}; {{scripture||Mosiah|3|8}}; {{scripture||Mosiah|13|28,33-34}}; {{scripture||Mosiah|15|1}}; {{scripture||Helaman|8|22-23}}; {{scripture||Helaman|14|12}}; {{scripture||Helaman|16|18}}; {{scripture|3|Nephi|11|10,14}}; {{scripture||Mormon|9|12}}; {{scripture||Ether|3|14}}; {{scripture||Ether|4|7}}; {{scripture||Ether|4|12}}.)
* It is simply illogical to conclude that Joseph Smith changed the four passages in 1 Nephi to conform to his supposed changing theological beliefs, but somehow forgot to change all the others.
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"the Son of"
|subject="the Son of" added to 1 Nephi 11:18, 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32, and 1 Nephi 13:40
|summary=Critics charge that the earliest edition of the Book of Mormon referred to Jesus as "God," but in later editions this was changed to "the Son of God." They cite this as evidence that Joseph Smith changed the Book of Mormon to conform to his changing beliefs about the Trinity. They claim Joseph was originally a solid Trinitarian (perhaps even a Modalist), and as he later began to teach that the Father and Son were two separate beings, he had to change the Book of Mormon to support his new doctrine.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Numerous changes to the first edition of the Book of Mormon were made for its 2nd edition. '''LDS leaders would have you believe it is all punctuation and grammar corrections but''' of the nearly 4,000 alterations, some of them had to do with Joseph's evolving belief about the nature of God. {{ea}}
|think=
*{{Antispeak|liars}}
* If "LDS leaders" are trying to get members to believe that all the Book of Mormon changes were "punctuation and grammar corrections," why do they publish statements like the following in the ''Ensign''?
<blockquote>"In a few places, however, Joseph Smith did intentionally add to the text to clarify a point. An illustration of this is the added words the son of in 1 Nephi 11:21, 32, and 13:40. The text would be correct with or without the additional words, but the addition helps the reader avoid misunderstanding." - {{Ensign|author=George Horton|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/12/understanding-textual-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon]|date=December 1983}}</blockquote>

|quote=
* "Some have alleged that these books of revelation are false, and they place in evidence changes that have occurred in the texts of these scriptures since their original publication. They cite these changes, of which there are many examples, as though they themselves were announcing revelation. As though they were the only ones that knew of them. Of course there have been changes and corrections. Anyone who has done even limited research knows that. When properly reviewed, such corrections become a testimony for, not against, the truth of the books....Now, I add with emphasis that such changes have been basically minor refinements in grammar, expression, punctuation, clarification. Nothing fundamental has been altered. Why are they not spoken of over the pulpit? Simply because by comparison they are so insignificant, and unimportant as literally to be not worth talking about. After all, they have absolutely nothing to do with whether the books are true." -{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1974/04/we-believe-all-that-god-has-revealed We Believe All That God Has Revealed]|date=May 1974|pages=94}}
* Once again, the crafty LDS leaders are hiding matters by publishing them in the official magazine, and then sending a copy to each home.
* Other Church-produced or -published sources include:
** "Intentional additions to improve clarity: The most dramatic instance of clarifying a text is found at 1 Nephi 11:18, 21, 32 and 13:40, where the words "the son of" have been added before the names God and "the Eternal Father." Joseph Smith personally made these corrections in the 1837 edition. Given the fact that these texts are clearly talking about Jesus, the Son of God, the addition of "the son of" was appropriate to give additional clarity for the reader." - {{Book:Cheesman:Keystone Scripture|pages=249|author=George A. Horton, Jr.|article=Book of Mormon—Transmission from Translator to Printed Text}}
**{{CTBoM1_1}}
**{{CTBoM21_1}}
**{{CTBoM22_1}}

|link=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"the Son of"
|subject="the Son of" added to 1 Nephi 11:18, 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32, and 1 Nephi 13:40
|summary=Critics charge that the earliest edition of the Book of Mormon referred to Jesus as "God," but in later editions this was changed to "the Son of God." They cite this as evidence that Joseph Smith changed the Book of Mormon to conform to his changing beliefs about the Trinity. They claim Joseph was originally a solid Trinitarian (perhaps even a Modalist), and as he later began to teach that the Father and Son were two separate beings, he had to change the Book of Mormon to support his new doctrine.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Originally the Doctrine and Covenants contained the Lectures on Faith, accepted as doctrine by Joseph Smith in 1835. The Fifth Lecture on Faith (I think these lectures were actually part of the D & C until the church removed them in 1920) specifically states that the Father is a spirit, that only Jesus has a body, and that the Holy Ghost is the Mind of the Father and the Son. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon promoted this as doctrine in 1835. Yet the whole foundation of the church rests on the reality of the 1820 first vision that proves a different Godhead.
|think=
*There is no documentary evidence that indicates exactly when Joseph Smith learned that God the Father had a glorified and perfected body of flesh and bone. And, despite our typical assumptions, there is also no indication that Joseph learned any such thing during his 1820 First Vision.
*Regardless of when this revelation was bestowed upon the Prophet, it cannot be established beyond doubt that he was responsible for the teaching about the "spirit" nature of God found in the main text of lecture #5. It may, instead, be true that the Prophet was involved in adjusting the lecture #5 text to conform with his earlier work on the translation of the Bible.
|quote=
|response=
|link=First Vision/The Father as Spirit vs. Embodied
|subject=Is the Father embodied or a spirit?
|summary=When the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was published in 1835 it portrayed God the Father as a personage of spirit whereas Jesus Christ was portrayed as a personage of tabernacle, or one having a physical body. Yet the official LDS First Vision story portrays the Father as a physical Being. Critics claim that this is evidence of an evolution of story; and that the evolution of this story is evidence of fraud.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Another potential evidence that Joseph Smith did not see the Father and the Son in 1820, to those who believe in the restoration of the Priesthood, is the fact that in the year 1832 Joseph Smith claimed to have a revelation which stated that a man could not see God without the Priesthood. This revelation is published as Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants.
|think=
*When D&C 84:21-22 is analyzed in context then an interpretation emerges that does not support the one proposed by the Prophet's critics. The relevant words read:
<blockquote>
[19] "And this greater [i.e., Melchizedek] priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. [20] Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, '''the power of godliness''' is manifest. [21] And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, '''the power of godliness''' is not manifest unto men in the flesh; [22] For without '''this''' no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."
</blockquote>
*The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness."{{ref|robinson1}} One of the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood is the bestowal of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (see {{s||DC|49|14}}). As the Lord explained in an 1831 revelation, "no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God" ({{s||DC|67|11}}).
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Doctrine and Covenants 84 says God not seen without priesthood
|subject=D&C:84 says God cannot be seen without priesthood
|summary=Critics argue that Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God in 1820 and also claimed that he received the priesthood in 1829. But in a text which he produced in 1832 ({{S||DC|84|21-22}}) it is said that a person cannot see God without holding the priesthood. Therefore, critics claim that Joseph Smith contradicted himself and this counts as evidence against his calling as an authentic prophet of God.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=It appears that The only thing Joseph Smith said that was perhaps really unique was that God the Father had a body of "flesh and bone". But who can say if he is correct or not?
Even if Joseph was the first person to propose something, it is very flawed logic to assume what he proposed is true or that he is a prophet for proposing it - especially when it can't be proven one way or another.

|think=
*Well, the interesting thing is that Joseph never said anything about the personages having "flesh and bone" in his accounts of his vision. That teaching came later.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Also, Joseph is often credited with being the first person to claim that there are three degrees of glory (which no one knows is right or wrong anyway). But this concept has also been around a long time. In 1784, Emanuel Swedenborg wrote a book called Heaven and Hell and Its Wonders about his visions of the afterlife. Swedenborg insisted: "There are three heavens," described as "entirely distinct from each other." He called the highest heaven "the Celestial Kingdom," and stated that the inhabitants of the three heavens corresponded to the "sun, moon and stars."
|think=
*Swedenborg was hardly the first theologian or thinker to suggest that heavenly rewards were not all identical, but graduated into degrees of glory. The discussion and debate about the fate of the righteous in heaven goes back to the earliest Christian centuries.
*The charge that Swedenborg was Joseph's source was not even mentioned by those who disliked both Joseph and Swedenborg, and knew both works. Elements in Joseph's schema are present in the Bible, but not present in Swedenborg's model. The claim of "similarity" rests on a few superficial similarities between Joseph and Swedenborg and the Bible—and ignores the many marked differences between them.
*Even if one is not inclined to grant Joseph Smith prophetic status, it seems far more plausible that his view of a three-tiered heaven derives from the New Testament, and not from Swedenborg.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Plan of salvation/Three degrees of glory/Swedenborg
|subject=Swedenborg
|summary=Critics claim that Joseph Smith derived the idea of "three degrees of glory" in the afterlife from Emanuel Swedenborg's book, ''Heaven and its Wonders and Hell From Things Heard and Seen'' (1758). Critics also claim that Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage was similar to Swedenborg's philosophy of "spiritual wifery."
*You can read the source here: [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Heaven_And_Hell ''Heaven and Hell or, Heaven and its Wonders and Hell''] (1905) by Emanuel Swedenborg, translated by John C. Ager
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The different versions of the First Vision. The following is as close to an official response from the LDS Church that we could find: Ensign Article See the January 1985 issue of The Ensign on the church's web site. The site does not allow a direct link to the article. You'll have to use the index, just cut and paste the following into your web browser: http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm Church Publications/Magazines/Ensign/1985/January
Joseph Smith's Recitals of the First Vision by Milton V. Backman, Jr.
|think=
*This is bizarre: You mean it doesn't allow ''this'' direct link?
<blockquote>
Milton Backman Jr., "[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision]," ''Ensign'', January 1985.
</blockquote>
*We found this by searching lds.org just like for any other article.
*Try Googling "Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision"—that ''also'' brings up a direct link to the article on lds.org as the first Google search result.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=It is obvious by the above statements by church leaders that the First Vision did not happen in the way the Church portrays. The church would have you believe that Joseph had the vision in 1820 and that it has always been the central part of the LDS faith. In fact the one, simple, plain truth that every member that joined the church should have known is that God the Father and Jesus Christ were separate beings. We take this for granted now but this wasn't firmly established until over 15 years after the event supposedly occurred.
|think=
* The separate nature of God and Christ was apparent from the very earliest LDS documents, such as the Book of Mormon.
* MormonThink plays a good trick the numbers--note that it is "over 15 years after the event supposedly occurred." Since the vision was in 1820 and the Church wasn't organized until 1830, ten of the fifteen years had already passed. Were future Mormons supposed to be learning Joseph's theology before he had even founded a church? So, MormonThink has already admitted that this was unmistakeable within 5 years of the Church's establishment.
* But, the earliest documents go back even further than that.
|quote=

* In 1829, the Book of Mormon was translated:

:The Book of Mormon also begins (1 Nephi 1:8-10) with Lehi's vision of God on his throne. One [Christ] followed by twelve others descends from God to speak with Lehi--thus, Jesus and the Father are here both separate, and the role of Christ in giving instructions to the prophet while the Father looks on and approves is followed, just as it was in Joseph's First Vision. Here too, Lehi is described as praying to "the Lord," and yet has a vision of both God the Father and Christ.

* Between June and October 1830, Joseph had dictated his revision (the "Joseph Smith Translation") to Genesis. Joseph's rendered {{s||Genesis|1|26|27}} as:

:And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so....And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. ({{s||Moses|2|26-27}}.)

* There can be no doubt that Joseph understood "in mine own image" to refer to a physical likeness, rather than merely a moral or intellectual one. The JST of {{s||Genesis|5|1-2}} reads

:In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; ''in the image of his own body'', male and female, created he them ({{s||Moses|6|8-9}}, emphasis added)

*Thus, by 1830 Joseph's revelations were clearly teaching a separation of the Father and Son, and insisting that both had some type of physical form which could be copied in the creation of humanity. (It is not clear, however, whether he understood the physical nature of the Father's body at this early date. He still, however, taught that [[Joseph Smith's First Vision/The Father as Spirit vs. Embodied|the Father was a distinct personage]] and entity with form that could be seen.)

* Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, also noted that other Christian denominations took issue with the new Church because of its teachings about God, noting that in 1830:

:the different denominations are very much opposed to us.... the Methodists also come, and they rage, for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle.{{ref|lucy.mack.smith.145}}

* All this is less than a year from the Church's organization. Some members may have not internalized these ideas, or may have been slow to abandon ideas about God rooted in two millennia of Christian history, but MormonThink's claim simply does not match the earliest documents.

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith's early conception of God
|subject=Joseph Smith's early conception of God
|summary=Critics claim that Joseph Smith initially taught standard Nicene trinitarianism. The early documents tell a different story, however.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Joseph recounted how the visitation of the angel Moroni happened on September 21, 1823. An interesting question - how is it that JS could remember the precise date of the angel's visit in 1823, but could not remember the precise date of God's appearance to him in 1820?
|think=
*Because he was 14 years old. He probably didn't even know the date.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=We can accept that Joseph wanted to fellowship with other believers in Christ even if he didn't believe their doctrine. So we don't have a problem if Joseph merely attended an occasional Methodist church service. Most of us involved with MormonThink don't think that this particular problem with the First Vision is as serious as some critics claim. However we are somewhat disturbed if he actually tried to officially join the Methodist Church as God specifically told him not to....Joseph was welcomed, not persecuted by the Methodists.
|think=
*{{Antispeak|repeat}}
*{{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
MormonThink has above quoted the ''Amboy Journal'' of 1879 in an attempt to prove that Joseph joined the Methodists in 1828. Why do they not report what the Methodists did to Joseph within ''three days'' of him attending?
|quote=
:...while he, Smith, was in Harmony, Pa., translating his book....that he joined the M[ethodist] [Episocpal] church. He presented himself in a very serious and humble manner, and the minister, not suspecting evil, put his name on the class book, the absence of some of the official members, among whom was the undersigned, Joseph Lewis, who, when he learned what was done, took with him Joshua McKune, and had a talk with Smith. They told him plainly that such a character as he was a disgrace to the church, that he could not be a member of the church unless he broke off his sins by repentance, made public confession, renounced his fraudulent and hypocritical practices, and gave some evidence that he intended to reform and conduct himself somewhat nearer like a christian than he had done. They gave him his choice, to go before the class, and publicly ask to have his name stricken from the class book, or stand a disciplinary investigation. He chose the former, and immediately withdrew his name. So his name as a member of the class was on the book only three days.--It was the general opinion that his only object in joining the church was to bolster up his reputation and gain the sympathy and help of christians; that is, putting on the cloak of religion to serve the devil in.{{ref|lewis.1}}

* Given that Lewis says he arranged Joseph's ouster from the group within three days as soon as he heard of it, and that most people assumed Joseph was only trying to "build his reputation," to "serve the devil in," despite coming "in a very serious and humble manner" this does not sound at all like he was "welcomed...by the Methodists."
* And, remember that this late recollection is the ''only'' mention of Joseph being a Methodist at all. [[Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches#Sources_which_contradict_the_critics|Several sources]] that are much earlier (from both friendly and hostile witnesses) assert that Joseph never joined a church.

|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Persecution after the vision
|subject=Persecution after the vision?
|summary=Some claim that there is no evidence that Joseph or his family were persecuted because of the First Vision. They argue that this means that Joseph invented the story later.
|link2=Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches/Methodist_membership_procedures_and_Joseph_Smith
|subject2=Do Hiel and Jospeh Lewis' account match with claims that Joseph was a member of the Methodists?
|summary2=A review of the requirements of Methodist membership (at least six months probation), the necessity of baptism, and rules about how lapsed members were to be handled all make the claim that Joseph was a Methodist implausible.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=How do we know that it wasn't Satan (if he exists) that appeared to Joseph? Please read this insightful essay to see how Satan can appear as a Heavenly Being as described by Joseph Smith.
|think=
* {{Antispeak|mutually exclusive}}
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-content-externalism/''How do we know we are not just a brain in a vat?'']
*The editors at MormonThink have spent a considerable amount of effort demonstrating the God really doesn't exist, but just to make sure every base is covered, they are going to suggest that it might have been ''Satan'' that appeared? If, of course, he exists. Any source will do as long as it leads to a disbelief in the Church, is that it?
* MormonThink has spent a great deal of time claiming that Joseph deceived people; now they want to turn around and claim he ''did'' see a vision, but it was satanic?
|quote=
|link=Moroni's visit/Angel of Satan
|subject=Moroni as an "angel of Satan"
|summary=Some critics have charged that Moroni, the resurrected prophet who gave the Book of Mormon plates to Joseph Smith, was really an angel of Satan.
|link2=Holy Ghost/Revelation from God or the devil
|subject2=Revelation from God or the devil
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=One of the best summaries and perhaps most plausible explanations for the various issues surrounding Joseph's First Vision, can be found in the last chapter of LDS Church Education System teacher Grant Palmer's book An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. After presenting an impressive series of well-documented arguments against the traditional version we've all been taught in the church, the author proposes a very plausible explanation: "After a mass exodus of high-ranking church leaders including several apostles, all three special witnesses of the BOM and three of the eight witnesses to the BOM, Joseph took to reestablishing his authority. He made many changes to the church including changing the name of the church. He began by attacking those who were circulating unsavory "reports" regarding "the rise and progress of the Church", then told a revised and more impressive version of his epiphany.
|think=
* MormonThink describes Palmer as an "LDS Church Education System teacher." Palmer was disfellowshipped and then left the Church. Why doesn't MormonThink tell us that?
*This argument is a reference to the Kirtland crisis of 1837–38. Warren Parrish was considered by some of the Saints to be the ringleader of the Kirtland crisis. It is, therefore, all the more interesting that it was this same Warren Parrish who acted as scribe in recording a First Vision recital given by the Prophet Joseph Smith on 9 November 1835. When Parrish's 1835 account of the theophany is compared to the 1838 account it becomes glaringly obvious that the story did not change over time, as the critics would like everyone to believe.
*But, Joseph didn't just write the experience down in 1835, ''he was telling other people about it.'' This had nothing to do with "reestablishing his authority" three years later.
*Why is Palmer the first person to figure this out? If apostles and the Book of Mormon witnesses were at odds with Joseph, surely they knew what story Joseph had been telling them all along? They were very close to him from the beginning, especially people like Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer. Why did ''none'' of these men notice what Palmer wants us to accept? Why did none of them say, "Hey, Joseph, you're changing your story?" Quite simply because he didn't, and so it didn't even occur to them. Otherwise, they'd have been quick to point it out.
|quote=
*From Joseph's journal:
<blockquote>
14 November 1835 • Saturday 
A Gentleman called this after noon by the name of Erastus Holmes of Newbury Clemon [Newberry, Clermont] Co. Ohio, he called to make enquiry about the establishment of the church of the latter-day Saints and to be instructed more perfectly in our doctrine &c I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old and also the visitations that I received afterward, concerning the book of Mormon, and a short account of the rise and progress of the church, up to this, date he listened verry attentively and seemed highly gratified, and intends to unite with the Church he is a verry candid man indeed and I am much pleased with him.
</blockquote>
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts/1838/Account modified to offset leadership crisis
|subject=1838 account modified to offset leadership crisis?
|summary=Critics claim that in 1838 Joseph Smith revised his personal history to say that his original call came from God the Father and Jesus Christ rather than an angel. His motive for doing this was to give himself a stronger leadership role because an authority crisis had recently taken place and large-scale apostasy was the result.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Now whenever we go out with missionaries (some of us actually still do that) as they teach the First Vision, it makes us wonder what really happened to Joseph? Did he see God the Father and Jesus or just Jesus or just angels and which of the many reported circumstances surrounding the First Vision actually occurred?
|think=
*We don't think that MormonThink's webmaster goes out with the missionaries any more.
*None of Joseph's accounts state that he saw ''just'' angels. One account states that in addition to the two personages, that he saw "many angels."
|quote=
*From Joseph's journal dated 9 November, 1835:
<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.
</blockquote>
*Then, just five days later on 14 November, 1835, Joseph wrote the following in his journal:
<blockquote>
I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old.
</blockquote>
*It is unlikely Joseph changed his story between the 9th and 14th of November. It is obvious that he interchangeably used the word "Angels" (Note the capitalization) and "personages."
*You may read the primary source here: [[Primary sources/Joseph Smith, Jr./First Vision accounts/1835]]
*Once again, no one in Joseph's day called him on the obvious "contradiction" that MormonThink wants us to accept. Why not? There was no contradiction to notice.
}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|bushman.41}}{{Book:Bushman:Rough Stone Rolling|pages=41}}
#{{note|bushman.40.41}}{{Book:Bushman:Rough Stone Rolling:Short|pages=40-41}}
#{{note|lucy.90.91}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors|pages=90-91}}
#{{note|lucy.74}} Note that Lucy quotes Joseph's report that his mother and four siblings were members of the Presbyterian faith prior to his vision in {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=74}}
#{{note|lucy.48}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=48}}
#{{note|lucy.90.91b}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=90-91}}
#{{note|lucy.74b}} Note that Lucy quotes Joseph's report that his mother and four siblings were members of the Presbyterian faith prior to his vision in {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=74}}
#{{note|lucy.48b}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=48}}
#{{note|robinson1}} "...godliness can be permanently, individually attained only through the ordinances of the holy priesthood. Nevertheless, 'godliness' or being like God can be attained temporarily in another way - by transfiguration. If the Holy Ghost enters into our physical bodies, so that for a moment we become one with the Spirit, then have been thus 'transfigured' to godliness, we are able to see the face of God and live." {{Book:Robinson Garret:Commentary on the D&C:3|pages=32-33}}
#{{note|lucy.mack.smith.145}} {{Book:Smith:Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and Progenitors:Short|pages=145}}

Question: How can we tell if a modern revelation comes from God or Satan?

2012-12-13T09:23:46Z

MikeSantoy: /* Philosophy */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=Holy Ghost: source of revelation=
=={{Criticism label}}==

How can we tell if a modern revelation comes from God or Satan

=={{Conclusion label}}==
Moroni 7:13:
But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
*[http://lds.org/languages/additionalmanuals/preachgospel/PreachMyGospel___11_04_RecognizeTheSpirit__36617_eng_011.pdf''How Do I Recognize and Understand the Spirit?''] {{ref|Preach}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

===Philosophy===
[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-sem-challenge/''How do we know the world is not an illusion?'']
[http://www.iep.utm.edu/brainvat/''How do we know we are not just a brain in a vat?'']
How do we know our life is not a dream?

We just don't believe any of that, we just take what our senses tell us.
Such questions are just meaningless.

===Consider what Joseph Smith told Brigham Young===
“''Tell the brethren to be humble and faithful and be sure to keep the Spirit of the
Lord, that it will lead them aright. Be careful and not turn away the still, small
voice; it will teach them what to do and where to go; it will yield the fruits of
the kingdom. Tell the brethren to keep their heart open to conviction, so that
when the Holy Ghost comes to them their hearts will be ready to receive it.
They can tell the Spirit of the Lord from all other spirits—it will whisper peace
and joy to their souls; it will take malice, hatred, strife and all evil from their
hearts, and their whole desire will be to do good''” (quoted in Juvenile
Instructor, 19 July 1873, 114)

Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley said:

“''That’s the test,
when all is said and done. Does it persuade one to do good, to rise, to stand tall, to do
the right thing, to be kind, to be generous? Then it is of the Spirit of God''. . . .
“''If it invites to do good, it is of God. If it inviteth to do evil, it is of the devil. . . . And if
you are doing the right thing and if you are living the right way, you will know in your
heart what the Spirit is saying to you.
“You recognize the promptings of the Spirit by the fruits of the Spirit—that which
enlighteneth, that which buildeth up, that which is positive and affirmative and uplifting
and leads us to better thoughts and better words and better deeds is of the Spirit of God''”
(Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, 260–61)

=== Elder Dallin H. Oaks stated: ===

“''[A person may have] a strong desire to be led by the Spirit of the Lord but . . . unwisely extends that desire to the point of wanting to be led in all things. A desire to be led by the Lord is a strength, but it needs to be accompanied by an understanding that our Heavenly Father leaves many decisions for our personal choices. Personal decision making is one of the sources of the growth we are meant to experience in mortality. Persons who try to shift all decision making to the Lord and plead for revelation in every choice will soon find circumstances in which they pray for guidance and don't receive it. For example, this is likely to occur in those numerous circumstances in which the choices are trivial or either choice is acceptable.
“We should study things out in our minds, using the reasoning powers our Creator
has placed within us. Then we should pray for guidance and act upon it if we
receive it. If we do not receive guidance, we should act upon our best judgment.
Persons who persist in seeking revelatory guidance on subjects on which the Lord
has not chosen to direct us may concoct an answer out of their own fantasy or
bias, or they may even receive an answer through the medium of '''false revelation'''''”
(“Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall,” Ensign, Oct. 1994, 13–14)

* This statement can apply to everyone, even to General Authorities as a voice of warning

===President Howard W. Hunter said===

“''Let me offer a word of caution. . . . I
think if we are not careful . . . , we may begin to try to counterfeit the true influence of the
Spirit of the Lord by unworthy and manipulative
means. I get concerned when it appears that
strong emotion or free-flowing tears are equated
with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit
of the Lord can bring strong emotional feelings,
including tears, but that outward manifestation
ought not to be confused with the presence of the
Spirit itself''” (The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter,
184)

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|Preach}} Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service (2004), pg.89 - pg. 102

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:FAIRwiki:New page template]]

Question: How can we tell if a modern revelation comes from God or Satan?

2012-12-13T09:04:30Z

MikeSantoy: /* Philosophy */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=Holy Ghost: source of revelation=
=={{Criticism label}}==

How can we tell if a modern revelation comes from God or Satan

=={{Conclusion label}}==
Moroni 7:13:
But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
*[http://lds.org/languages/additionalmanuals/preachgospel/PreachMyGospel___11_04_RecognizeTheSpirit__36617_eng_011.pdf''How Do I Recognize and Understand the Spirit?''] {{ref|Preach}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

===Philosophy===
[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-sem-challenge/''How do we know the world is not an illusion?''] {{ref|braininvat1}}
[http://www.iep.utm.edu/brainvat/''How do we know we are not just a brain in a vat?''] {{ref|braininvat2}}
How do we know our life is not a dream?

We just don't believe any of that, we just take what our senses tell us.
Such questions are just meaningless.

===Consider what Joseph Smith told Brigham Young===
“''Tell the brethren to be humble and faithful and be sure to keep the Spirit of the
Lord, that it will lead them aright. Be careful and not turn away the still, small
voice; it will teach them what to do and where to go; it will yield the fruits of
the kingdom. Tell the brethren to keep their heart open to conviction, so that
when the Holy Ghost comes to them their hearts will be ready to receive it.
They can tell the Spirit of the Lord from all other spirits—it will whisper peace
and joy to their souls; it will take malice, hatred, strife and all evil from their
hearts, and their whole desire will be to do good''” (quoted in Juvenile
Instructor, 19 July 1873, 114)

Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley said:

“''That’s the test,
when all is said and done. Does it persuade one to do good, to rise, to stand tall, to do
the right thing, to be kind, to be generous? Then it is of the Spirit of God''. . . .
“''If it invites to do good, it is of God. If it inviteth to do evil, it is of the devil. . . . And if
you are doing the right thing and if you are living the right way, you will know in your
heart what the Spirit is saying to you.
“You recognize the promptings of the Spirit by the fruits of the Spirit—that which
enlighteneth, that which buildeth up, that which is positive and affirmative and uplifting
and leads us to better thoughts and better words and better deeds is of the Spirit of God''”
(Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, 260–61)

=== Elder Dallin H. Oaks stated: ===

“''[A person may have] a strong desire to be led by the Spirit of the Lord but . . . unwisely extends that desire to the point of wanting to be led in all things. A desire to be led by the Lord is a strength, but it needs to be accompanied by an understanding that our Heavenly Father leaves many decisions for our personal choices. Personal decision making is one of the sources of the growth we are meant to experience in mortality. Persons who try to shift all decision making to the Lord and plead for revelation in every choice will soon find circumstances in which they pray for guidance and don't receive it. For example, this is likely to occur in those numerous circumstances in which the choices are trivial or either choice is acceptable.
“We should study things out in our minds, using the reasoning powers our Creator
has placed within us. Then we should pray for guidance and act upon it if we
receive it. If we do not receive guidance, we should act upon our best judgment.
Persons who persist in seeking revelatory guidance on subjects on which the Lord
has not chosen to direct us may concoct an answer out of their own fantasy or
bias, or they may even receive an answer through the medium of '''false revelation'''''”
(“Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall,” Ensign, Oct. 1994, 13–14)

* This statement can apply to everyone, even to General Authorities as a voice of warning

===President Howard W. Hunter said===

“''Let me offer a word of caution. . . . I
think if we are not careful . . . , we may begin to try to counterfeit the true influence of the
Spirit of the Lord by unworthy and manipulative
means. I get concerned when it appears that
strong emotion or free-flowing tears are equated
with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit
of the Lord can bring strong emotional feelings,
including tears, but that outward manifestation
ought not to be confused with the presence of the
Spirit itself''” (The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter,
184)

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|Preach}} Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service (2004), pg.89 - pg. 102

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:FAIRwiki:New page template]]

Question: How can we tell if a modern revelation comes from God or Satan?

2012-12-13T09:02:30Z

MikeSantoy:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=Holy Ghost: source of revelation=
=={{Criticism label}}==

How can we tell if a modern revelation comes from God or Satan

=={{Conclusion label}}==
Moroni 7:13:
But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
*[http://lds.org/languages/additionalmanuals/preachgospel/PreachMyGospel___11_04_RecognizeTheSpirit__36617_eng_011.pdf''How Do I Recognize and Understand the Spirit?''] {{ref|Preach}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

===Philosophy===
[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-sem-challenge/''How do we know the world is not an illusion?''] {{ref|braininvat1}}
[http://www.iep.utm.edu/brainvat/''How do we know we are not just a brain in a vat?''] {{ref|braininvat2}}
How do we know our life is not a dream?
We just don't believe any of that, we just take what our senses tell us.
Such questions are just meaningless.

===Consider what Joseph Smith told Brigham Young===
“''Tell the brethren to be humble and faithful and be sure to keep the Spirit of the
Lord, that it will lead them aright. Be careful and not turn away the still, small
voice; it will teach them what to do and where to go; it will yield the fruits of
the kingdom. Tell the brethren to keep their heart open to conviction, so that
when the Holy Ghost comes to them their hearts will be ready to receive it.
They can tell the Spirit of the Lord from all other spirits—it will whisper peace
and joy to their souls; it will take malice, hatred, strife and all evil from their
hearts, and their whole desire will be to do good''” (quoted in Juvenile
Instructor, 19 July 1873, 114)

Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley said:

“''That’s the test,
when all is said and done. Does it persuade one to do good, to rise, to stand tall, to do
the right thing, to be kind, to be generous? Then it is of the Spirit of God''. . . .
“''If it invites to do good, it is of God. If it inviteth to do evil, it is of the devil. . . . And if
you are doing the right thing and if you are living the right way, you will know in your
heart what the Spirit is saying to you.
“You recognize the promptings of the Spirit by the fruits of the Spirit—that which
enlighteneth, that which buildeth up, that which is positive and affirmative and uplifting
and leads us to better thoughts and better words and better deeds is of the Spirit of God''”
(Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, 260–61)

=== Elder Dallin H. Oaks stated: ===

“''[A person may have] a strong desire to be led by the Spirit of the Lord but . . . unwisely extends that desire to the point of wanting to be led in all things. A desire to be led by the Lord is a strength, but it needs to be accompanied by an understanding that our Heavenly Father leaves many decisions for our personal choices. Personal decision making is one of the sources of the growth we are meant to experience in mortality. Persons who try to shift all decision making to the Lord and plead for revelation in every choice will soon find circumstances in which they pray for guidance and don't receive it. For example, this is likely to occur in those numerous circumstances in which the choices are trivial or either choice is acceptable.
“We should study things out in our minds, using the reasoning powers our Creator
has placed within us. Then we should pray for guidance and act upon it if we
receive it. If we do not receive guidance, we should act upon our best judgment.
Persons who persist in seeking revelatory guidance on subjects on which the Lord
has not chosen to direct us may concoct an answer out of their own fantasy or
bias, or they may even receive an answer through the medium of '''false revelation'''''”
(“Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall,” Ensign, Oct. 1994, 13–14)

* This statement can apply to everyone, even to General Authorities as a voice of warning

===President Howard W. Hunter said===

“''Let me offer a word of caution. . . . I
think if we are not careful . . . , we may begin to try to counterfeit the true influence of the
Spirit of the Lord by unworthy and manipulative
means. I get concerned when it appears that
strong emotion or free-flowing tears are equated
with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit
of the Lord can bring strong emotional feelings,
including tears, but that outward manifestation
ought not to be confused with the presence of the
Spirit itself''” (The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter,
184)

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|Preach}} Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service (2004), pg.89 - pg. 102

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:FAIRwiki:New page template]]

Question: How can we tell if a modern revelation comes from God or Satan?

2012-12-13T07:48:46Z

MikeSantoy:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=Holy Ghost: source of revelation=
=={{Criticism label}}==

How do we know when a revelation comes from God, or from the devil?

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Moroni 7:13:
But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.

== ==
{{Response label}}

*[http://lds.org/languages/additionalmanuals/preachgospel/PreachMyGospel___11_04_RecognizeTheSpirit__36617_eng_011.pdf''How Do I Recognize and Understand the Spirit?''] {{ref|Preach}}

===Consider what Joseph Smith told Brigham Young===
“''Tell the brethren to be humble and faithful and be sure to keep the Spirit of the
Lord, that it will lead them aright. Be careful and not turn away the still, small
voice; it will teach them what to do and where to go; it will yield the fruits of
the kingdom. Tell the brethren to keep their heart open to conviction, so that
when the Holy Ghost comes to them their hearts will be ready to receive it.
They can tell the Spirit of the Lord from all other spirits—it will whisper peace
and joy to their souls; it will take malice, hatred, strife and all evil from their
hearts, and their whole desire will be to do good''” (quoted in Juvenile
Instructor, 19 July 1873, 114)

Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley said:

“''That’s the test,
when all is said and done. Does it persuade one to do good, to rise, to stand tall, to do
the right thing, to be kind, to be generous? Then it is of the Spirit of God''. . . .
“''If it invites to do good, it is of God. If it inviteth to do evil, it is of the devil. . . . And if
you are doing the right thing and if you are living the right way, you will know in your
heart what the Spirit is saying to you.
“You recognize the promptings of the Spirit by the fruits of the Spirit—that which
enlighteneth, that which buildeth up, that which is positive and affirmative and uplifting
and leads us to better thoughts and better words and better deeds is of the Spirit of God''”
(Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, 260–61)

=== Elder Dallin H. Oaks stated: ===

“''[A person may have] a strong desire to be led by the Spirit of the Lord but . . . unwisely extends that desire to the point of wanting to be led in all things. A desire to be led by the Lord is a strength, but it needs to be accompanied by an understanding that our Heavenly Father leaves many decisions for our personal choices. Personal decision making is one of the sources of the growth we are meant to experience in mortality. Persons who try to shift all decision making to the Lord and plead for revelation in every choice will soon find circumstances in which they pray for guidance and don't receive it. For example, this is likely to occur in those numerous circumstances in which the choices are trivial or either choice is acceptable.
“We should study things out in our minds, using the reasoning powers our Creator
has placed within us. Then we should pray for guidance and act upon it if we
receive it. If we do not receive guidance, we should act upon our best judgment.
Persons who persist in seeking revelatory guidance on subjects on which the Lord
has not chosen to direct us may concoct an answer out of their own fantasy or
bias, or they may even receive an answer through the medium of '''false revelation'''''”
(“Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall,” Ensign, Oct. 1994, 13–14)

* This statement can apply to everyone, even to General Authorities as a voice of warning

===President Howard W. Hunter said===

“''Let me offer a word of caution. . . . I
think if we are not careful . . . , we may begin to try to counterfeit the true influence of the
Spirit of the Lord by unworthy and manipulative
means. I get concerned when it appears that
strong emotion or free-flowing tears are equated
with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit
of the Lord can bring strong emotional feelings,
including tears, but that outward manifestation
ought not to be confused with the presence of the
Spirit itself''” (The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter,
184)

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|Preach}} Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service (2004), pg.89 - pg. 102

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:FAIRwiki:New page template]]

Holy Ghost/Problems with revelation

2012-12-07T00:43:28Z

MikeSantoy: Blanked the page

Holy Ghost/Problems with revelation

2012-12-07T00:42:21Z

MikeSantoy: Undo revision 99354 by MikeSantoy (talk)

Holy Ghost/Problems with revelation

2012-12-07T00:40:47Z

MikeSantoy: Blanked the page

Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith's early conception of God

2012-12-05T09:12:41Z

MikeSantoy:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{FirstVisionPortal}}
{{question}}

=={{Question label}}==

Some critics claim that Joseph began his prophetic career with a "trinitarian" idea of God, and only later developed his theology of the Godhead. What do we know about Joseph and the early Saints' views on God?

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Joseph and the early Saints were not trinitarian, and understood God's embodiment and the identity of the Father and Son as separate beings very early on. This doctrine is apparent in the Book of Mormon, and in the earliest friendly and non-friendly accounts of such matters from the Saints.

Such texts demonstrate that the supposed 'evidence' for Joseph altering his story later is only in the eyes of critical beholders.

== ==
{{Response label}}

Joseph's account here focuses on the remission of his sins. However, critics who wish to claim that in 1832 Joseph had only a vaguely "trinitarian" idea of God (and so would see the Father and the Son as only one being) have missed vital evidence which must be considered.{{ref|paulsen1}}

===1829===
One should first note that in the 1832 account of the First Vision, Jesus announces to Joseph that he will come "clothed in the glory of my Father." The Book of Mormon (translated three years earlier in 1829) also contains numerous passages which teach a physical separation and embodiment (even if only in ''spirit'' bodies, which are clearly not immaterial, but have shape, position, and form) of the members of the Godhead. (See: {{s|3|Nephi|11||}}, {{s|1|Nephi|11|1-11}}, {{s||Ether|3|14-18}}.)

The Book of Mormon also begins ({{s|1|Nephi|1|8-10}}) with Lehi's vision of God on his throne. '''One''' [Christ] followed by twelve '''others''' descends from God to speak with Lehi--thus, Jesus and the Father are here both separate, and the role of Christ in giving instructions to the prophet while the Father looks on and approves is followed, just as it was in Joseph's First Vision. Here too, Lehi is described as praying to "the Lord," and yet has a vision of both God the Father and Christ.

===1830===
Between June and October 1830, Joseph had dictated his revision (the "Joseph Smith Translation") to Genesis.{{ref|faulring.83}} The first chapter of Moses was dictated in June 1830 (about a month after the Church's reorganization), and began:

:2 And [Moses] saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence.
:3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?
:4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease.
:5 Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth.
:6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all ({{s||Moses|1|2-6}})

Here already, God distinguishes himself from the Only Begotten, Moses sees and speaks with God face to face, and says that Moses was created "in the similitude of mine Only Begotten."

Joseph's rendered {{b||Genesis|1|26|27}} as:

:And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so....And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. ({{s||Moses|2|26-27}}.)

There can be no doubt that Joseph understood "in mine own image" to refer to a physical likeness, rather than merely a moral or intellectual one. The JST of {{b||Genesis|5|1-2}} reads

:In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; ''in the image of his own body'', male and female, created he them ({{s||Moses|6|8-9}}, emphasis added)

Thus, by 1830 Joseph was clearly teaching a separation of the Father and Son, and insisting that both had some type of physical form which could be copied in the creation of humanity.

Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, also noted that other Christian denominations took issue with the new Church because of its teachings about God, noting that in 1830:

:the different denominations are very much opposed to us.... The Methodists also come, and they rage, for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle.{{ref|lms1}}

===1831===

Anti-Mormon writers in 1831 noted that Joseph claimed to have received "a commission from God"; and the Mormons claimed that Joseph "had seen God frequently and personally."{{ref|anti1}} That Joseph's enemies knew he claimed to have "seen God," indicates that the doctrine of an embodied God that could be seen was well-known early on.

John Whitmer would also write in 1831 of a vision enjoyed by Joseph in which Joseph saw Christ as separate from the Father, for he "saw the heavens opened, and the Son of Man ''sitting on the right hand of the Father'' making intercession for his brethren, the Saints." {{ea}} {{ref|whitmer.1831}} Of this same experience, Levi Hancock wrote:

:Joseph Smith then stepped out onto the floor and said, 'I now see God, and Jesus Christ ''at his right hand'', let them kill me, I should not feel death as I am now.' {{ea}} {{ref|hancock.1831}}

===1832===
Furthermore, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were to receive a revelation of the three degrees of glory in the same year as Joseph's 1832 account was written; it clearly teaches a physical separation of the Father and Son, bearing witness of seeing both. (See {{s||DC|76|14,20–24}}.){{ref|dcref}}

===1832–1833===

Two of Joseph's close associates reported their own visions of God in the winter of 1832–1833. Both are decidedly not in the trinitarian mould.

Zebedee Coltrin:

:Joseph having given instructions, and while engaged in silent prayer, kneeling...a personage walked through the room from East to west, and Joseph asked if we saw him. I saw him and suppose the others did, and Joseph answered that this was Jesus, the Son of God, our elder brother. Afterward Joseph told us to resume our former position in prayer, which we did. Another person came through; He was surrounded as with a flame of fire. [I] experienced a sensation that it might destroy the tabernacle as it was of consuming fire of great brightness. The Prophet Joseph said this was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I saw him....

:He was surrounded as with a flame of fire, which was so brilliant that I could not discover anything else but his person. I saw his hands, his legs, his feet, his eyes, nose, mouth, head and body in the shape and form of a perfect man. He sat in a chair as a man would sit in a chair, but This appearance was so grand and overwhelming that it seemed that I should melt down in His presence, and the sensation was so powerful that it thrilled through my whole system and I felt it in the marrow of my bones. The Prophet Joseph said: "Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages.{{ref|coltrin1}}

John Murdock:

:During the winter that I boarded with[Bro[ther] Joseph... we had a number of prayer meetings, in the Prophet’s chamber.... In one of those meetings the Prophet told us if we could humble ourselves before God, and exersise [sic] strong faith, we should see the face of the Lord. And about midday the visions of my mind were opened, and the eyes of my understanding were enlightened, and I saw the form of a man, most lovely, the visage of his face was sound and fair as the sun. His hair a bright silver grey, curled in a most majestic form, His eyes a keen penetrating blue, and the skin of his neck a most beautiful white and he was covered from the neck to the feet with a loose garment, pure white, whiter than any garment I had ever before seen. His countenance was the most penetrating, and yet most lovely. And while I was endeavoring to comprehend the whole personage from head to feet it slipped from me, and the vision was closed up. But it left on my mind the impression of love, for months, that I never felt before to that degree.{{ref|murdock1}}

===1834–1835===

In the School of the Prophets, the brethren were taught that

:"There are ''two personages'' who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made. . . . They are the Father and the Son--the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fulness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle. (Lecture 5:1–2)

Here, the separateness of the Father and Son continues to be made clear.

{{main|The_Father:_A_Spirit_vs._Embodied|Lecture_5_teaches_the_Father_is_"a_personage_of_spirit"|l1=The Father: Embodied or with Spirit in early LDS documents|l2=God the Father: A Spirit or Embodied in the ''Lectures on Faith''}}

===1836===

A skeptical news article noted:

:They believe that the true God is a material being, composed of body and parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself....{{ref|coe.1836}}

===Evidence that is absent===

In addition to all the non-trinitarian evidence above, as Milton Backman has noted, there is a great deal of evidence that we should find, but don't. For example, no one has

:located a publication (such as an article appearing in a church periodical or statement from a missionary pamphlet) written by an active Latter-day Saint prior to the martyrdom of the Prophet that defends the traditional or popular creedal concept of the Trinity. . . .

:Moreover, there are no references in critical writings of the 1830s (including statements by apostates) that Joseph Smith introduced in the mid-thirties the doctrine of separateness of the Father and Son.{{ref|backman.1}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|paulsen1}} {{BYUS|author=David L. Paulsen|article=The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives|vol=35|num=4|date=1995–96|start=6|end=94|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=6342}}{{NB}}
#{{note|faulring.83}} {{Book:Faulring Jackson Matthews:New Translation of the Bible|pages=82}}
#{{note|lms1}}{{LucyMackSmith-Nibley1|start=161}}
#{{note|anti1}} ''Palmyra (New York) Reflector'' (14 February 1832): 102.
#{{note|whitmer.1831}} F. Mark McKiernan, ''An Early Latter-day Saint History: The Book of John Whitmer'' (Independence, MO.: Herald Publishing House 1980), 67, punctuation corrected; cited in {{BYUS1|author=Robert L. Millet|article=[https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5931 Joseph Smith and Modern Mormonism: Orthodoxy, Neoorthodoxy, Tension, and Tradition]|vol=29|date=Summer 1989|num=3|start=49–68}}
#{{note|hancock.1831}} As cited in Millet, "Joseph Smith and Modern Mormonism," footnote 12.
#{{note|dcref}} The current D&C 76 vision was first published in ''Evening and Morning Star'', Independence, Missouri, July 1832.
#{{note|coltrin1}}3 October 1883, ''Salt Lake School of the Prophets Minute Book 1883'' (Palm Desert, California: ULC Press, 1981), 39; cited in Paulsen, 34.
#{{note|murdock1}}"An Abridged Record of the Life of John Murdock Taken From His Journal by Himself," (typescript) Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 13; cited in Paulsen, 35.
#{{note|coe.1836}} {{CriticalWork:Coe:Mormonism|pages=xxx}}
#{{note|backman.1}} {{Book:Millet:To Be Learned Is Good If|author=Milton V. Backman, Jr.|article=Joseph Smith's First Vision: Cornerstone of a Latter-day Faith|pages=}}; cited in Millet, "Joseph Smith and Modern Mormonism," 59.

{{FurtherReading}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[Category:First Vision]]
[[de:Joseph Smiths frühe Vorstellung von Gott]]
[[fr:First Vision/Joseph Smith's early conception of God]]

Mormon responses to atheism

2012-11-30T05:22:26Z

MikeSantoy: /* Mormon responses to atheism */

Mormon responses to atheism

2012-11-30T05:06:34Z

MikeSantoy: Undo revision 99223 by MikeSantoy (talk)

Mormon responses to atheism

2012-11-30T04:53:57Z

MikeSantoy: Blanked the page

Science and the Church of Jesus Christ

2012-11-28T01:39:28Z

MikeSantoy: /* Science and LDS scripture */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{summary}}
<onlyinclude>
=[[Mormonism and science]]=<noinclude>
=={{Criticism label}}==
*Critics claim that Mormons believe that if there is a conflict between science and religion, that the science is incorrect.
*Critics claim that Mormonism reserves the right to identify scientific truth.
{{CriticalSources}}

={{Conclusion label}}=
Latter-day Saints are not required to discard science in favor of religion. Many Latter-day Saints are heavily involved in scientific research without suffering a loss of faith. Not only do we believe that science is continually being updated, but that Gospel knowledge will be updated as well. As the 9th Article of Faith states:

:''We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.''

We acknowledge that ''we do not understand everything'' regarding the manner in which God created the earth, but we have been assured through revelation that at some future time we will be allowed to understand these things. Neither religion nor science knows everything, but revelation provides us with sufficient knowledge to obtain salvation. In religion, as in science, all should be constantly seeking for the "further light and knowledge" that comes from God.

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{Epigraph|Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men.{{ref|eyring.2}} 
—Henry Eyring, developer of the Absolute Rate Theory of chemical reactions: One of the most important developments of 20th-century chemistry.}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular...whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant. 
—{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=14|start=116|disc=16|date=May 14, 1871}} }}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Latter-day Saints should strive to use both science and religion to extend knowledge and to build faith. But those who do so must guard against the significant risk that efforts to end the separation between scientific scholarship and religious faith will only promote a substandard level of performance, where religion and science dilute one another instead of strengthening both. For some, an attempt to mingle reason and faith can result in irrational scholarship or phony religion, either condition demonstrably worse than the described separation. 
—{{Book:Oaks:Life's Lessons Learned|pages=58-59}}}}
{{parabreak}}
</noinclude>
==Determining truth==
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Are they compatible
|subject=Are Mormonism and science compatible?
|summary=Secular critics charge that Mormonism and science are incompatible, and that any Latter-day Saint who actually believes is "intellectually dishonest." In reality, however, Latter-day Saints in many ways have a more liberal view of science than some of their Christian brethren. We believe that God operates according to certain laws. If there are things that God can do which seem to contradict what we know through current science, we assume that there are scientific laws that are beyond our current understanding.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Faith versus knowledge
|subject=Faith versus knowledge
|summary=It is important to keep in mind the difference in purpose between science and the Gospel. The purpose of science is to examine the characteristics of the world around us in order to more fully understand it. A main purpose of the Gospel is to teach us to develop faith. Unfortunately, the acquisition of scientific knowledge is sometimes perceived to destroy faith. The purpose of faith is to help us understand spiritual things, just as science helps us to understand physical things.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Holy Ghost/Burning in the bosom
|subject=Burning in the bosom
|summary=Critics are known to mockingly refer to the LDS imagery of a "burning in the bosom." While the phrase is used in the LDS community to express the intense feelings of receiving spiritual witnesses, critics claim it is simply the result of an electro-chemical process that occurs in the brain.
}}

==Latter-day Saint approaches to science==
{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/Archaeology
|subject=Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
|summary=Critics charge that what is known about ancient American archaeology is not consistent with the Book of Mormon account. Sectarian critics often add the claim that the Bible has been "proven" true by archaeology, unlike the Book of Mormon.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Evolution
|subject=Evolution
|summary=How does the Church reconcile the theory of evolution with the story of Adam?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Pre-Adamites
|subject=Pre-Adamites
|summary=There is scientific evidence of human habitation for many thousands of years. How do we reconcile this with the idea that Adam lived approximately 6,000 years ago?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Death before the Fall
|subject=Death before the Fall
|summary=Does LDS doctrine hold that there was no death before the Fall of Adam?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Procreation before the Fall
|subject=Procreation before the Fall
|summary=Did procreation exist before the Fall of Adam?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Global or local Flood
|subject=Global or local Flood
|summary=How do we deal with the fact that there is no scientific evidence of a worldwide flood? How can the scriptures and prophets teach of a worldwide flood, when this contradicts the evidence? The biodiversity of plants and animals on the earth could not have occurred within the span of a few thousand years. Did the continents separate during the flood of Noah? Doctrine and Covenants 133:23–24 seems to imply that they did. How do we reconcile this to scientific fact? Didn't Brigham Young, John Taylor and Orson Pratt teach that the Flood was the baptism of the Earth?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Age of the Earth
|subject=Age of the Earth
|summary=Do Latter-day Saints believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Why does Doctrine and Covenants section 77 say that the history of the earth covers only seven thousand years?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Dinosaurs
|subject=Dinosaurs
|summary=How do dinosaurs fit into God's plan?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/DNA evidence
|subject=Book of Mormon and DNA evidence
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Free will
|subject=Free will and science
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Alleged "discovery" of cold fusion by Utah researchers
|subject=Alleged "discovery" of cold fusion by Utah researchers
|summary=Critics claim that the mistaken "discovery" of cold fusion in Utah reflects on either LDS gullibility, inability to do science, or dishonesty.
}}

==Science and LDS scripture==
*Book of Abraham
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Book of Abraham/Astronomy
|subject=Astronomy in BoA
|summary=
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Book of Abraham/Astronomy/Kolob-Sun
|subject=Sun borrows light from Kolob?
|summary=
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Book of Abraham/Astronomy/Revolution Time
|subject=Time on other planets?
|summary=
}}
*Cosmology
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Cosmology and Physics/Absolute beginning?
|subject=An absolute beginning?
|summary=
}}
* Book of Mormon
{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon archaeology
|subject=Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
|summary=
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Book_of_Mormon_archaeology/Thomas_Stuart_Ferguson
|subject=Thomas Stuart Ferguson
|summary=
}}

==Latter-day Saint attitude toward science==
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and education
|subject=Mormonism and education
|summary=Does the Church Educational System (CES) insist that gospel learning takes precedence over secular learning? Does the level of activity in the Church decrease as educational level increases?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Apologetics
|subject=Latter-day Saint apologists' attitudes toward science
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Utah/Statistical claims
|subject=Statistical claims
|summary=This page indexes attacks and criticism of the Church based upon statistical analysis.
}}

==Church leaders' statements related to science==
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and doctrine/Changing
|subject=General authorities statements regarding science
|summary=If General authorities' statements are treated as scripture, then what does that mean when they make statements regarding science?
}}<noinclude>
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Brigham Young/Teachings/Moon and sun are inhabited
|subject=Brigham Young and moonmen
|summary=Didn't Brigham Young preach that the sun and the moon were inhabited?
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Mormonism and science/Joseph Fielding Smith claimed that man would never walk on the Moon
|subject=Joseph Fielding Smith claimed that man would never walk on the Moon
|summary=Didn't Joseph Fielding Smith declare that man would never leave this planet?
}}</noinclude>
</onlyinclude>

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|eyring.62}} {{Book:Eyring:Reflections of a Scientist|pages=2}}

{{FurtherReading}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Mormonism and science]]

Science and the Church of Jesus Christ/Cosmology

2012-11-28T01:37:01Z

MikeSantoy: MikeSantoy moved page Mormonism and science/Cosmology to Mormonism and the Bible/Cosmology over redirect

#REDIRECT [[Mormonism and the Bible/Cosmology]]

Question: How did the authors of the Bible view the earth and the universe?

2012-11-28T01:37:01Z

MikeSantoy: MikeSantoy moved page Mormonism and science/Cosmology to Mormonism and the Bible/Cosmology over redirect

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{BiblePortal}}
|-
| {{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
|}

{{question}}

=={{Question label}}==

What can you tell me about how Bible authors viewed the earth and the universe?

== ==
{{Response label}}

The standard reference work, the ''Anchor Bible Dictionary'' writes:

:The variety in date, origin, and scope of the Hebrew Bible's cosmological materials means that achieving a single, uniform picture of the physical universe is hardly possible. Still, sufficient overlap does obtain between the many accounts of the universe, however these may vary in their details, to allow for a few generalizations. The earth on which humanity dwells is seen as a round, solid object, perhaps a disk, floating upon a limitless expanse of water. Paralleling this lower body of water is a second, similarly limitless, above, from which water descends in the form of rain through holes and channels piercing the heavenly reservoir. The moon, sun, and other luminaries are fixed in a curved structure which arches over the earth. This structure is the familiar "firmament" (raqiya) of the priestly account, perhaps envisioned as a solid but very thin substance on the analogy of beaten and stretched metal. Though some texts appear to convey a picture of a four-storied universe ({{b||Job|11|8-9}} or {{b||Psalms|139|8-9}}), the great majority of biblical texts assume the three-storied universe so clearly assumed in other, ancient traditions. Thus, the Decalog's prohibition of images specifies "heaven above," "earth below," and "water under the earth" as the possible models for any such forbidden images ({{b||Exodus|20|4}}). If we understand the common term "earth" (erets) as designating at times the "underworld," then the combined references in {{B||Psalms|77|19}} to heaven, the "world" (tebel), and the "earth" ('erets) are another appeal to the universe as a three-storied structure (for other texts where 'erets may refer to the underworld, see Stadelmann 1970: 128, n. 678). Clearer reference still to the same structure is to be found in {{B||Psalms|115|15-17}}, where we find grouped together "the heaven of heavens," "the earth," and the realm of "the dead" (cf. {{B||Psalms|33|6-8}} snf {{b||Proverbs|8|27-29}}).

: The curving, solid structure which arches over the realm of humanity is sometimes called a "disk" or "vault" (hug; {{b||Isaiah|40|22}}, {{b||Proverbs|8|27}}). That which allows the heavenly abyss to water the earth are occasional interruptions in this solid structure, openings called variously windows, doors, or channels. In some texts, that which suspends the habitable earth above the underworld's waters (see {{b|1|Samuel|2|8}} for another reference to these rivers) are pillars or some such foundational structures. These seem envisioned in {{b||Job|38|4-5}}; {{B||Psalms|24|2}}; 104:5; {{b||Proverbs|8|29}}, and elsewhere. Finally, the realm beneath the arena of human activity is not only imagined as one of watery chaos but also given the specific designation "Sheol" (''she'ol''), usually translated "the underworld." In the different elaborations upon just what one should imagine Sheol as including, again there is little consistency. At times, Sheol is personified, with a belly or womb and a mouth ({{b||Jonah|2|3}}-Eng 2:2); {{b||Proverbs|1|23}}; {{B||Proverbs|30|16}}; and {{B||Psalms|141|7}}), while at others Sheol is rather more architecturally portrayed ({{b||Isaiah|38|10}}; {{b||Job|7|9-10}}; {{b||Job|14|20-22}}; {{b||Job|17|13}}; {{b||Job|18|17-18}}), as a dark and forgetful land or city (Stadlmann 1970: 1666-76).{{ref|anchor1}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|anchor1}} ''Anchor Bible Dictionary'', at 1:1167-68, s.v. "Cosmogony, Cosmology."

{{FurtherReading}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Bible/Cosmology]]

Question: How did the authors of the Bible view the earth and the universe?

2012-11-28T01:32:52Z

MikeSantoy: MikeSantoy moved page Mormonism and the Bible/Cosmology to Mormonism and science/Cosmology

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{BiblePortal}}
|-
| {{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
|}

{{question}}

=={{Question label}}==

What can you tell me about how Bible authors viewed the earth and the universe?

== ==
{{Response label}}

The standard reference work, the ''Anchor Bible Dictionary'' writes:

:The variety in date, origin, and scope of the Hebrew Bible's cosmological materials means that achieving a single, uniform picture of the physical universe is hardly possible. Still, sufficient overlap does obtain between the many accounts of the universe, however these may vary in their details, to allow for a few generalizations. The earth on which humanity dwells is seen as a round, solid object, perhaps a disk, floating upon a limitless expanse of water. Paralleling this lower body of water is a second, similarly limitless, above, from which water descends in the form of rain through holes and channels piercing the heavenly reservoir. The moon, sun, and other luminaries are fixed in a curved structure which arches over the earth. This structure is the familiar "firmament" (raqiya) of the priestly account, perhaps envisioned as a solid but very thin substance on the analogy of beaten and stretched metal. Though some texts appear to convey a picture of a four-storied universe ({{b||Job|11|8-9}} or {{b||Psalms|139|8-9}}), the great majority of biblical texts assume the three-storied universe so clearly assumed in other, ancient traditions. Thus, the Decalog's prohibition of images specifies "heaven above," "earth below," and "water under the earth" as the possible models for any such forbidden images ({{b||Exodus|20|4}}). If we understand the common term "earth" (erets) as designating at times the "underworld," then the combined references in {{B||Psalms|77|19}} to heaven, the "world" (tebel), and the "earth" ('erets) are another appeal to the universe as a three-storied structure (for other texts where 'erets may refer to the underworld, see Stadelmann 1970: 128, n. 678). Clearer reference still to the same structure is to be found in {{B||Psalms|115|15-17}}, where we find grouped together "the heaven of heavens," "the earth," and the realm of "the dead" (cf. {{B||Psalms|33|6-8}} snf {{b||Proverbs|8|27-29}}).

: The curving, solid structure which arches over the realm of humanity is sometimes called a "disk" or "vault" (hug; {{b||Isaiah|40|22}}, {{b||Proverbs|8|27}}). That which allows the heavenly abyss to water the earth are occasional interruptions in this solid structure, openings called variously windows, doors, or channels. In some texts, that which suspends the habitable earth above the underworld's waters (see {{b|1|Samuel|2|8}} for another reference to these rivers) are pillars or some such foundational structures. These seem envisioned in {{b||Job|38|4-5}}; {{B||Psalms|24|2}}; 104:5; {{b||Proverbs|8|29}}, and elsewhere. Finally, the realm beneath the arena of human activity is not only imagined as one of watery chaos but also given the specific designation "Sheol" (''she'ol''), usually translated "the underworld." In the different elaborations upon just what one should imagine Sheol as including, again there is little consistency. At times, Sheol is personified, with a belly or womb and a mouth ({{b||Jonah|2|3}}-Eng 2:2); {{b||Proverbs|1|23}}; {{B||Proverbs|30|16}}; and {{B||Psalms|141|7}}), while at others Sheol is rather more architecturally portrayed ({{b||Isaiah|38|10}}; {{b||Job|7|9-10}}; {{b||Job|14|20-22}}; {{b||Job|17|13}}; {{b||Job|18|17-18}}), as a dark and forgetful land or city (Stadlmann 1970: 1666-76).{{ref|anchor1}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|anchor1}} ''Anchor Bible Dictionary'', at 1:1167-68, s.v. "Cosmogony, Cosmology."

{{FurtherReading}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Bible/Cosmology]]

Science and the Church of Jesus Christ

2012-11-28T00:57:46Z

MikeSantoy: /* Science and LDS scripture */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{summary}}
<onlyinclude>
=[[Mormonism and science]]=<noinclude>
=={{Criticism label}}==
*Critics claim that Mormons believe that if there is a conflict between science and religion, that the science is incorrect.
*Critics claim that Mormonism reserves the right to identify scientific truth.
{{CriticalSources}}

={{Conclusion label}}=
Latter-day Saints are not required to discard science in favor of religion. Many Latter-day Saints are heavily involved in scientific research without suffering a loss of faith. Not only do we believe that science is continually being updated, but that Gospel knowledge will be updated as well. As the 9th Article of Faith states:

:''We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.''

We acknowledge that ''we do not understand everything'' regarding the manner in which God created the earth, but we have been assured through revelation that at some future time we will be allowed to understand these things. Neither religion nor science knows everything, but revelation provides us with sufficient knowledge to obtain salvation. In religion, as in science, all should be constantly seeking for the "further light and knowledge" that comes from God.

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{Epigraph|Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men.{{ref|eyring.2}} 
—Henry Eyring, developer of the Absolute Rate Theory of chemical reactions: One of the most important developments of 20th-century chemistry.}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular...whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant. 
—{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=14|start=116|disc=16|date=May 14, 1871}} }}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Latter-day Saints should strive to use both science and religion to extend knowledge and to build faith. But those who do so must guard against the significant risk that efforts to end the separation between scientific scholarship and religious faith will only promote a substandard level of performance, where religion and science dilute one another instead of strengthening both. For some, an attempt to mingle reason and faith can result in irrational scholarship or phony religion, either condition demonstrably worse than the described separation. 
—{{Book:Oaks:Life's Lessons Learned|pages=58-59}}}}
{{parabreak}}
</noinclude>
==Determining truth==
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Are they compatible
|subject=Are Mormonism and science compatible?
|summary=Secular critics charge that Mormonism and science are incompatible, and that any Latter-day Saint who actually believes is "intellectually dishonest." In reality, however, Latter-day Saints in many ways have a more liberal view of science than some of their Christian brethren. We believe that God operates according to certain laws. If there are things that God can do which seem to contradict what we know through current science, we assume that there are scientific laws that are beyond our current understanding.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Faith versus knowledge
|subject=Faith versus knowledge
|summary=It is important to keep in mind the difference in purpose between science and the Gospel. The purpose of science is to examine the characteristics of the world around us in order to more fully understand it. A main purpose of the Gospel is to teach us to develop faith. Unfortunately, the acquisition of scientific knowledge is sometimes perceived to destroy faith. The purpose of faith is to help us understand spiritual things, just as science helps us to understand physical things.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Holy Ghost/Burning in the bosom
|subject=Burning in the bosom
|summary=Critics are known to mockingly refer to the LDS imagery of a "burning in the bosom." While the phrase is used in the LDS community to express the intense feelings of receiving spiritual witnesses, critics claim it is simply the result of an electro-chemical process that occurs in the brain.
}}

==Latter-day Saint approaches to science==
{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/Archaeology
|subject=Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
|summary=Critics charge that what is known about ancient American archaeology is not consistent with the Book of Mormon account. Sectarian critics often add the claim that the Bible has been "proven" true by archaeology, unlike the Book of Mormon.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Evolution
|subject=Evolution
|summary=How does the Church reconcile the theory of evolution with the story of Adam?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Pre-Adamites
|subject=Pre-Adamites
|summary=There is scientific evidence of human habitation for many thousands of years. How do we reconcile this with the idea that Adam lived approximately 6,000 years ago?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Death before the Fall
|subject=Death before the Fall
|summary=Does LDS doctrine hold that there was no death before the Fall of Adam?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Procreation before the Fall
|subject=Procreation before the Fall
|summary=Did procreation exist before the Fall of Adam?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Global or local Flood
|subject=Global or local Flood
|summary=How do we deal with the fact that there is no scientific evidence of a worldwide flood? How can the scriptures and prophets teach of a worldwide flood, when this contradicts the evidence? The biodiversity of plants and animals on the earth could not have occurred within the span of a few thousand years. Did the continents separate during the flood of Noah? Doctrine and Covenants 133:23–24 seems to imply that they did. How do we reconcile this to scientific fact? Didn't Brigham Young, John Taylor and Orson Pratt teach that the Flood was the baptism of the Earth?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Age of the Earth
|subject=Age of the Earth
|summary=Do Latter-day Saints believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Why does Doctrine and Covenants section 77 say that the history of the earth covers only seven thousand years?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Dinosaurs
|subject=Dinosaurs
|summary=How do dinosaurs fit into God's plan?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/DNA evidence
|subject=Book of Mormon and DNA evidence
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Free will
|subject=Free will and science
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Alleged "discovery" of cold fusion by Utah researchers
|subject=Alleged "discovery" of cold fusion by Utah researchers
|summary=Critics claim that the mistaken "discovery" of cold fusion in Utah reflects on either LDS gullibility, inability to do science, or dishonesty.
}}

==Science and LDS scripture==
*Book of Abraham
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Book of Abraham/Astronomy
|subject=Astronomy in BoA
|summary=
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Book of Abraham/Astronomy/Kolob-Sun
|subject=Sun borrows light from Kolob?
|summary=
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Book of Abraham/Astronomy/Revolution Time
|subject=Time on other planets?
|summary=
}}
*Cosmology
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Cosmology/Absolute beginning?
|subject=An absolute beginning?
|summary=
}}
* Book of Mormon
{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon archaeology
|subject=Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
|summary=
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Book_of_Mormon_archaeology/Thomas_Stuart_Ferguson
|subject=Thomas Stuart Ferguson
|summary=
}}

==Latter-day Saint attitude toward science==
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and education
|subject=Mormonism and education
|summary=Does the Church Educational System (CES) insist that gospel learning takes precedence over secular learning? Does the level of activity in the Church decrease as educational level increases?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Apologetics
|subject=Latter-day Saint apologists' attitudes toward science
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Utah/Statistical claims
|subject=Statistical claims
|summary=This page indexes attacks and criticism of the Church based upon statistical analysis.
}}

==Church leaders' statements related to science==
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and doctrine/Changing
|subject=General authorities statements regarding science
|summary=If General authorities' statements are treated as scripture, then what does that mean when they make statements regarding science?
}}<noinclude>
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Brigham Young/Teachings/Moon and sun are inhabited
|subject=Brigham Young and moonmen
|summary=Didn't Brigham Young preach that the sun and the moon were inhabited?
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Mormonism and science/Joseph Fielding Smith claimed that man would never walk on the Moon
|subject=Joseph Fielding Smith claimed that man would never walk on the Moon
|summary=Didn't Joseph Fielding Smith declare that man would never leave this planet?
}}</noinclude>
</onlyinclude>

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|eyring.62}} {{Book:Eyring:Reflections of a Scientist|pages=2}}

{{FurtherReading}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Mormonism and science]]

Science and the Church of Jesus Christ

2012-11-28T00:48:05Z

MikeSantoy: /* Science and LDS scripture */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{summary}}
<onlyinclude>
=[[Mormonism and science]]=<noinclude>
=={{Criticism label}}==
*Critics claim that Mormons believe that if there is a conflict between science and religion, that the science is incorrect.
*Critics claim that Mormonism reserves the right to identify scientific truth.
{{CriticalSources}}

={{Conclusion label}}=
Latter-day Saints are not required to discard science in favor of religion. Many Latter-day Saints are heavily involved in scientific research without suffering a loss of faith. Not only do we believe that science is continually being updated, but that Gospel knowledge will be updated as well. As the 9th Article of Faith states:

:''We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.''

We acknowledge that ''we do not understand everything'' regarding the manner in which God created the earth, but we have been assured through revelation that at some future time we will be allowed to understand these things. Neither religion nor science knows everything, but revelation provides us with sufficient knowledge to obtain salvation. In religion, as in science, all should be constantly seeking for the "further light and knowledge" that comes from God.

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{Epigraph|Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men.{{ref|eyring.2}} 
—Henry Eyring, developer of the Absolute Rate Theory of chemical reactions: One of the most important developments of 20th-century chemistry.}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular...whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant. 
—{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=14|start=116|disc=16|date=May 14, 1871}} }}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Latter-day Saints should strive to use both science and religion to extend knowledge and to build faith. But those who do so must guard against the significant risk that efforts to end the separation between scientific scholarship and religious faith will only promote a substandard level of performance, where religion and science dilute one another instead of strengthening both. For some, an attempt to mingle reason and faith can result in irrational scholarship or phony religion, either condition demonstrably worse than the described separation. 
—{{Book:Oaks:Life's Lessons Learned|pages=58-59}}}}
{{parabreak}}
</noinclude>
==Determining truth==
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Are they compatible
|subject=Are Mormonism and science compatible?
|summary=Secular critics charge that Mormonism and science are incompatible, and that any Latter-day Saint who actually believes is "intellectually dishonest." In reality, however, Latter-day Saints in many ways have a more liberal view of science than some of their Christian brethren. We believe that God operates according to certain laws. If there are things that God can do which seem to contradict what we know through current science, we assume that there are scientific laws that are beyond our current understanding.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Faith versus knowledge
|subject=Faith versus knowledge
|summary=It is important to keep in mind the difference in purpose between science and the Gospel. The purpose of science is to examine the characteristics of the world around us in order to more fully understand it. A main purpose of the Gospel is to teach us to develop faith. Unfortunately, the acquisition of scientific knowledge is sometimes perceived to destroy faith. The purpose of faith is to help us understand spiritual things, just as science helps us to understand physical things.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Holy Ghost/Burning in the bosom
|subject=Burning in the bosom
|summary=Critics are known to mockingly refer to the LDS imagery of a "burning in the bosom." While the phrase is used in the LDS community to express the intense feelings of receiving spiritual witnesses, critics claim it is simply the result of an electro-chemical process that occurs in the brain.
}}

==Latter-day Saint approaches to science==
{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/Archaeology
|subject=Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
|summary=Critics charge that what is known about ancient American archaeology is not consistent with the Book of Mormon account. Sectarian critics often add the claim that the Bible has been "proven" true by archaeology, unlike the Book of Mormon.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Evolution
|subject=Evolution
|summary=How does the Church reconcile the theory of evolution with the story of Adam?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Pre-Adamites
|subject=Pre-Adamites
|summary=There is scientific evidence of human habitation for many thousands of years. How do we reconcile this with the idea that Adam lived approximately 6,000 years ago?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Death before the Fall
|subject=Death before the Fall
|summary=Does LDS doctrine hold that there was no death before the Fall of Adam?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Procreation before the Fall
|subject=Procreation before the Fall
|summary=Did procreation exist before the Fall of Adam?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Global or local Flood
|subject=Global or local Flood
|summary=How do we deal with the fact that there is no scientific evidence of a worldwide flood? How can the scriptures and prophets teach of a worldwide flood, when this contradicts the evidence? The biodiversity of plants and animals on the earth could not have occurred within the span of a few thousand years. Did the continents separate during the flood of Noah? Doctrine and Covenants 133:23–24 seems to imply that they did. How do we reconcile this to scientific fact? Didn't Brigham Young, John Taylor and Orson Pratt teach that the Flood was the baptism of the Earth?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Age of the Earth
|subject=Age of the Earth
|summary=Do Latter-day Saints believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Why does Doctrine and Covenants section 77 say that the history of the earth covers only seven thousand years?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Dinosaurs
|subject=Dinosaurs
|summary=How do dinosaurs fit into God's plan?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/DNA evidence
|subject=Book of Mormon and DNA evidence
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Free will
|subject=Free will and science
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and science/Alleged "discovery" of cold fusion by Utah researchers
|subject=Alleged "discovery" of cold fusion by Utah researchers
|summary=Critics claim that the mistaken "discovery" of cold fusion in Utah reflects on either LDS gullibility, inability to do science, or dishonesty.
}}

==Science and LDS scripture==
*Book of Abraham
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Book of Abraham/Astronomy
|subject=Astronomy in BoA
|summary=
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Book of Abraham/Astronomy/Kolob-Sun
|subject=Sun borrows light from Kolob?
|summary=
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Book of Abraham/Astronomy/Revolution Time
|subject=Time on other planets?
|summary=
}}
*Cosmology
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Book of Abraham/Astronomy/Absolute beginning?
|subject=An absolute beginning?
|summary=
}}
* Book of Mormon
{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon archaeology
|subject=Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
|summary=
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Book_of_Mormon_archaeology/Thomas_Stuart_Ferguson
|subject=Thomas Stuart Ferguson
|summary=
}}

==Latter-day Saint attitude toward science==
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and education
|subject=Mormonism and education
|summary=Does the Church Educational System (CES) insist that gospel learning takes precedence over secular learning? Does the level of activity in the Church decrease as educational level increases?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Apologetics
|subject=Latter-day Saint apologists' attitudes toward science
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Utah/Statistical claims
|subject=Statistical claims
|summary=This page indexes attacks and criticism of the Church based upon statistical analysis.
}}

==Church leaders' statements related to science==
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and doctrine/Changing
|subject=General authorities statements regarding science
|summary=If General authorities' statements are treated as scripture, then what does that mean when they make statements regarding science?
}}<noinclude>
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Brigham Young/Teachings/Moon and sun are inhabited
|subject=Brigham Young and moonmen
|summary=Didn't Brigham Young preach that the sun and the moon were inhabited?
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Mormonism and science/Joseph Fielding Smith claimed that man would never walk on the Moon
|subject=Joseph Fielding Smith claimed that man would never walk on the Moon
|summary=Didn't Joseph Fielding Smith declare that man would never leave this planet?
}}</noinclude>
</onlyinclude>

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|eyring.62}} {{Book:Eyring:Reflections of a Scientist|pages=2}}

{{FurtherReading}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Mormonism and science]]

Jesus Christ/Accusations that Latter-day Saints aren't Christians

2012-11-25T10:08:17Z

MikeSantoy:

Jesus Christ/Accusations that Latter-day Saints aren't Christians

2012-11-25T10:04:58Z

MikeSantoy:

Jesus Christ/Accusations that Latter-day Saints aren't Christians

2012-11-25T10:03:43Z

MikeSantoy:

Jesus Christ/Accusations that Latter-day Saints aren't Christians

2012-11-25T09:57:36Z

MikeSantoy:

Jesus Christ/Accusations that Latter-day Saints aren't Christians

2012-11-25T09:55:28Z

MikeSantoy: /* LDS Not Excluded by Belief or Practice */

Jesus Christ/Accusations that Latter-day Saints aren't Christians

2012-11-25T09:47:00Z

MikeSantoy:

Jesus Christ/Accusations that Latter-day Saints aren't Christians

2012-11-25T09:42:19Z

MikeSantoy:

Jesus Christ/Accusations that Latter-day Saints aren't Christians

2012-11-25T09:31:26Z

MikeSantoy:

Jesus Christ/Accusations that Latter-day Saints aren't Christians

2012-11-25T09:27:33Z

MikeSantoy:

Question: Why do Mormon's believe that ongoing divine revelation is necessary?

2012-11-22T09:13:40Z

MikeSantoy: /* Why do we need revelation today? */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{BiblePortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==
{{Epigraph|"Jesus Christ, the final and complete revelation of God ({{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}) has made "further revelation" obsolete and unnecessary. To claim to have such a "revelation" is to say that Jesus really wasn't what and who He said He was, and who the Bible describes Him as being. In actuality, it is the simple fact that Mormonism's teachings cannot be supported from the Bible that drives the leadership to find another source of authority. Everything that has ever claimed to be "further revelation" has failed the test of Scripture, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price" —Copyright 2005-2006 Alpha and Omega Ministries|}}

Critics claim that there is no need for on-going divine revelation; some even charge that claims of visions from God or revelations to a modern prophet is a blasphemous idea.

{{CriticalSources}}

===Conclusion===

If revelation was meant to cease, it would have ceased after Jesus ascended to heaven, but the Bible teaches that revelations and visions didn't cease.

"Biblical history has recorded many instances of God speaking to prophets, and it also tells of many instances of apostasy. To end each period of general apostasy, God has shown His love for His children by calling another prophet and giving him priesthood authority to restore and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ anew. In essence, the prophet acts as a steward to oversee the household of God here on earth. Such periods of time headed by prophetic responsibility are called dispensations" {{ref|PMG1}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{SeeAlso|Bible/"Adding_to"_or_"taking_away_from"|l1="Adding to" or "taking away from" God's word}}

'''{{b||Matthew|28|19-20}}'''
:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

'''{{b||Mark|16|15}}'''
:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

'''{{b||John|20|30-31}}'''
:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

'''We have the teachings of Jesus in the four gospels, why do we need the Book of Revelation, or the epistles of Paul?'''
LDS scriptures clarify the importance of revelation.

===What about '''{{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}'''? ===
:1 GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It is true that Jesus' coming in the flesh was the most complete revelation of the divine nature. But, these verses do not say that revelation thereby ceased. None of the New Testament was written until well after Jesus died and was resurrected—the early Christians do not seem to have regarded his coming as a bar to on-going revelation and scripture. Even after Jesus' ascension, he continued to give revelation to those chosen to lead his Church. For example, the Lord revealed to John, "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter" '''{{b||Revelation|1|19}}'''

===What about {{scripture|1|Corinthians |13|8}}? ===

This scripture is not talking about the last days.

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away" (KJV)

"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away" (NIV)

"Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away" (NASB)

"Our jobs will not be eternal; much of our formal education will be forgotten; our Church callings will come to an end" {{ref|Ensign1}}

===Why do we need revelation today?===

*1) New revelations and visions are necessary for our progression: time and circumstances always change
*2) So that we can have success in our own time and circumstances
*3) Despite the best efforts of Christian believers, the Bible has not proved capable of answering all questions in a universal way. There are thousands of Christian groups, and each understands some scriptures differently than others. The unity that should prevail among believers does not, despite their best efforts. Clearly more revelation is needed.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|PMG1}} Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service, (2004), 31–46
#{{note|Ensign1}} Jean Knight Pace, “The Joyful Surprise of Motherhood,” Ensign, Jan 2006, 54–57

{{FurtherReading}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[de:Bibel/Fortdauernde Offenbarungen nicht notwendig]]
[[fr:Bible/On-going divine revelation not necessary]]

Question: Why do Mormon's believe that ongoing divine revelation is necessary?

2012-11-22T09:11:45Z

MikeSantoy: /* Why do we need revelation today? */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{BiblePortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==
{{Epigraph|"Jesus Christ, the final and complete revelation of God ({{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}) has made "further revelation" obsolete and unnecessary. To claim to have such a "revelation" is to say that Jesus really wasn't what and who He said He was, and who the Bible describes Him as being. In actuality, it is the simple fact that Mormonism's teachings cannot be supported from the Bible that drives the leadership to find another source of authority. Everything that has ever claimed to be "further revelation" has failed the test of Scripture, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price" —Copyright 2005-2006 Alpha and Omega Ministries|}}

Critics claim that there is no need for on-going divine revelation; some even charge that claims of visions from God or revelations to a modern prophet is a blasphemous idea.

{{CriticalSources}}

===Conclusion===

If revelation was meant to cease, it would have ceased after Jesus ascended to heaven, but the Bible teaches that revelations and visions didn't cease.

"Biblical history has recorded many instances of God speaking to prophets, and it also tells of many instances of apostasy. To end each period of general apostasy, God has shown His love for His children by calling another prophet and giving him priesthood authority to restore and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ anew. In essence, the prophet acts as a steward to oversee the household of God here on earth. Such periods of time headed by prophetic responsibility are called dispensations" {{ref|PMG1}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{SeeAlso|Bible/"Adding_to"_or_"taking_away_from"|l1="Adding to" or "taking away from" God's word}}

'''{{b||Matthew|28|19-20}}'''
:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

'''{{b||Mark|16|15}}'''
:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

'''{{b||John|20|30-31}}'''
:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

'''We have the teachings of Jesus in the four gospels, why do we need the Book of Revelation, or the epistles of Paul?'''
LDS scriptures clarify the importance of revelation.

===What about '''{{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}'''? ===
:1 GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It is true that Jesus' coming in the flesh was the most complete revelation of the divine nature. But, these verses do not say that revelation thereby ceased. None of the New Testament was written until well after Jesus died and was resurrected—the early Christians do not seem to have regarded his coming as a bar to on-going revelation and scripture. Even after Jesus' ascension, he continued to give revelation to those chosen to lead his Church. For example, the Lord revealed to John, "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter" '''{{b||Revelation|1|19}}'''

===What about {{scripture|1|Corinthians |13|8}}? ===

This scripture is not talking about the last days.

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away" (KJV)

"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away" (NIV)

"Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away" (NASB)

"Our jobs will not be eternal; much of our formal education will be forgotten; our Church callings will come to an end" {{ref|Ensign1}}

===Why do we need revelation today?===

*1) Prophets and apostles in the Bible always had visions and revelations
*2) New revelations and visions are necessary for our progression as a church and people: time and circumstances always change
*3) So that we can have success in our own time and circumstances
*4) Despite the best efforts of Christian believers, the Bible has not proved capable of answering all questions in a universal way. There are thousands of Christian groups, and each understands some scriptures differently than others. The unity that should prevail among believers does not, despite their best efforts. Clearly more revelation is needed.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|PMG1}} Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service, (2004), 31–46
#{{note|Ensign1}} Jean Knight Pace, “The Joyful Surprise of Motherhood,” Ensign, Jan 2006, 54–57

{{FurtherReading}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[de:Bibel/Fortdauernde Offenbarungen nicht notwendig]]
[[fr:Bible/On-going divine revelation not necessary]]

Question: Why do Mormon's believe that ongoing divine revelation is necessary?

2012-11-22T09:09:09Z

MikeSantoy: /* {{Criticism label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{BiblePortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==
{{Epigraph|"Jesus Christ, the final and complete revelation of God ({{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}) has made "further revelation" obsolete and unnecessary. To claim to have such a "revelation" is to say that Jesus really wasn't what and who He said He was, and who the Bible describes Him as being. In actuality, it is the simple fact that Mormonism's teachings cannot be supported from the Bible that drives the leadership to find another source of authority. Everything that has ever claimed to be "further revelation" has failed the test of Scripture, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price" —Copyright 2005-2006 Alpha and Omega Ministries|}}

Critics claim that there is no need for on-going divine revelation; some even charge that claims of visions from God or revelations to a modern prophet is a blasphemous idea.

{{CriticalSources}}

===Conclusion===

If revelation was meant to cease, it would have ceased after Jesus ascended to heaven, but the Bible teaches that revelations and visions didn't cease.

"Biblical history has recorded many instances of God speaking to prophets, and it also tells of many instances of apostasy. To end each period of general apostasy, God has shown His love for His children by calling another prophet and giving him priesthood authority to restore and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ anew. In essence, the prophet acts as a steward to oversee the household of God here on earth. Such periods of time headed by prophetic responsibility are called dispensations" {{ref|PMG1}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{SeeAlso|Bible/"Adding_to"_or_"taking_away_from"|l1="Adding to" or "taking away from" God's word}}

'''{{b||Matthew|28|19-20}}'''
:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

'''{{b||Mark|16|15}}'''
:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

'''{{b||John|20|30-31}}'''
:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

'''We have the teachings of Jesus in the four gospels, why do we need the Book of Revelation, or the epistles of Paul?'''
LDS scriptures clarify the importance of revelation.

===What about '''{{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}'''? ===
:1 GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It is true that Jesus' coming in the flesh was the most complete revelation of the divine nature. But, these verses do not say that revelation thereby ceased. None of the New Testament was written until well after Jesus died and was resurrected—the early Christians do not seem to have regarded his coming as a bar to on-going revelation and scripture. Even after Jesus' ascension, he continued to give revelation to those chosen to lead his Church. For example, the Lord revealed to John, "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter" '''{{b||Revelation|1|19}}'''

===What about {{scripture|1|Corinthians |13|8}}? ===

This scripture is not talking about the last days.

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away" (KJV)

"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away" (NIV)

"Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away" (NASB)

"Our jobs will not be eternal; much of our formal education will be forgotten; our Church callings will come to an end" {{ref|Ensign1}}

===Why do we need revelation today?===

*1) We see in the Bible that God always revealed new things to the people
*2) Prophets and apostles in the Bible always had visions and revelations
*3) New revelations and visions are necessary for our progression as a church and people: time and circumstances always change
*4) So that we can have success in our own time and circumstances
*5) Despite the best efforts of Christian believers, the Bible has not proved capable of answering all questions in a universal way. There are thousands of Christian groups, and each understands some scriptures differently than others. The unity that should prevail among believers does not, despite their best efforts. Clearly more revelation is needed.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|PMG1}} Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service, (2004), 31–46
#{{note|Ensign1}} Jean Knight Pace, “The Joyful Surprise of Motherhood,” Ensign, Jan 2006, 54–57

{{FurtherReading}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[de:Bibel/Fortdauernde Offenbarungen nicht notwendig]]
[[fr:Bible/On-going divine revelation not necessary]]

Question: Why do Mormon's believe that ongoing divine revelation is necessary?

2012-11-22T09:05:58Z

MikeSantoy: /* Why not accept On-going divine revelation? */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{BiblePortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==
{{Epigraph|"Jesus Christ, the final and complete revelation of God ({{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}) has made "further revelation" obsolete and unnecessary. To claim to have such a "revelation" is to say that Jesus really wasn't what and who He said He was, and who the Bible describes Him as being. In actuality, it is the simple fact that Mormonism's teachings cannot be supported from the Bible that drives the leadership to find another source of authority. Everything that has ever claimed to be "further revelation" has failed the test of Scripture, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price" —Copyright 2005-2006 Alpha and Omega Ministries|}}

Critics claim that there is no need for on-going divine revelation today; some even charge that claims of visions from God or revelations to a modern prophet is a blasphemous idea.

{{CriticalSources}}

===Conclusion===

If revelation was meant to cease, it would have ceased after Jesus ascended to heaven, but the Bible teaches that revelations and visions didn't cease.

"Biblical history has recorded many instances of God speaking to prophets, and it also tells of many instances of apostasy. To end each period of general apostasy, God has shown His love for His children by calling another prophet and giving him priesthood authority to restore and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ anew. In essence, the prophet acts as a steward to oversee the household of God here on earth. Such periods of time headed by prophetic responsibility are called dispensations" {{ref|PMG1}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{SeeAlso|Bible/"Adding_to"_or_"taking_away_from"|l1="Adding to" or "taking away from" God's word}}

'''{{b||Matthew|28|19-20}}'''
:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

'''{{b||Mark|16|15}}'''
:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

'''{{b||John|20|30-31}}'''
:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

'''We have the teachings of Jesus in the four gospels, why do we need the Book of Revelation, or the epistles of Paul?'''
LDS scriptures clarify the importance of revelation.

===What about '''{{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}'''? ===
:1 GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It is true that Jesus' coming in the flesh was the most complete revelation of the divine nature. But, these verses do not say that revelation thereby ceased. None of the New Testament was written until well after Jesus died and was resurrected—the early Christians do not seem to have regarded his coming as a bar to on-going revelation and scripture. Even after Jesus' ascension, he continued to give revelation to those chosen to lead his Church. For example, the Lord revealed to John, "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter" '''{{b||Revelation|1|19}}'''

===What about {{scripture|1|Corinthians |13|8}}? ===

This scripture is not talking about the last days.

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away" (KJV)

"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away" (NIV)

"Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away" (NASB)

"Our jobs will not be eternal; much of our formal education will be forgotten; our Church callings will come to an end" {{ref|Ensign1}}

===Why do we need revelation today?===

*1) We see in the Bible that God always revealed new things to the people
*2) Prophets and apostles in the Bible always had visions and revelations
*3) New revelations and visions are necessary for our progression as a church and people: time and circumstances always change
*4) So that we can have success in our own time and circumstances
*5) Despite the best efforts of Christian believers, the Bible has not proved capable of answering all questions in a universal way. There are thousands of Christian groups, and each understands some scriptures differently than others. The unity that should prevail among believers does not, despite their best efforts. Clearly more revelation is needed.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|PMG1}} Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service, (2004), 31–46
#{{note|Ensign1}} Jean Knight Pace, “The Joyful Surprise of Motherhood,” Ensign, Jan 2006, 54–57

{{FurtherReading}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[de:Bibel/Fortdauernde Offenbarungen nicht notwendig]]
[[fr:Bible/On-going divine revelation not necessary]]

Question: Why do Mormon's believe that ongoing divine revelation is necessary?

2012-11-22T09:01:42Z

MikeSantoy: /* If one is going to accept on-going revelation after Jesus ascended to heaven */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{BiblePortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==
{{Epigraph|"Jesus Christ, the final and complete revelation of God ({{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}) has made "further revelation" obsolete and unnecessary. To claim to have such a "revelation" is to say that Jesus really wasn't what and who He said He was, and who the Bible describes Him as being. In actuality, it is the simple fact that Mormonism's teachings cannot be supported from the Bible that drives the leadership to find another source of authority. Everything that has ever claimed to be "further revelation" has failed the test of Scripture, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price" —Copyright 2005-2006 Alpha and Omega Ministries|}}

Critics claim that there is no need for on-going divine revelation today; some even charge that claims of visions from God or revelations to a modern prophet is a blasphemous idea.

{{CriticalSources}}

===Conclusion===

If revelation was meant to cease, it would have ceased after Jesus ascended to heaven, but the Bible teaches that revelations and visions didn't cease.

"Biblical history has recorded many instances of God speaking to prophets, and it also tells of many instances of apostasy. To end each period of general apostasy, God has shown His love for His children by calling another prophet and giving him priesthood authority to restore and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ anew. In essence, the prophet acts as a steward to oversee the household of God here on earth. Such periods of time headed by prophetic responsibility are called dispensations" {{ref|PMG1}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{SeeAlso|Bible/"Adding_to"_or_"taking_away_from"|l1="Adding to" or "taking away from" God's word}}

'''{{b||Matthew|28|19-20}}'''
:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

'''{{b||Mark|16|15}}'''
:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

'''{{b||John|20|30-31}}'''
:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

'''We have the teachings of Jesus in the four gospels, why do we need the Book of Revelation, or the epistles of Paul?'''
LDS scriptures clarify the importance of revelation.

===What about '''{{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}'''? ===
:1 GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It is true that Jesus' coming in the flesh was the most complete revelation of the divine nature. But, these verses do not say that revelation thereby ceased. None of the New Testament was written until well after Jesus died and was resurrected—the early Christians do not seem to have regarded his coming as a bar to on-going revelation and scripture. Even after Jesus' ascension, he continued to give revelation to those chosen to lead his Church. For example, the Lord revealed to John, "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter" '''{{b||Revelation|1|19}}'''

===What about {{scripture|1|Corinthians |13|8}}? ===

This scripture is not talking about the last days.

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away" (KJV)

"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away" (NIV)

"Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away" (NASB)

"Our jobs will not be eternal; much of our formal education will be forgotten; our Church callings will come to an end" {{ref|Ensign1}}

===Why do we need revelation today?===

*1) We see in the Bible that God always revealed new things to the people
*2) Prophets and apostles in the Bible always had visions and revelations
*3) New revelations and visions are necessary for our progression as a church and people: time and circumstances always change
*4) So that we can have success in our own time and circumstances
*5) Despite the best efforts of Christian believers, the Bible has not proved capable of answering all questions in a universal way. There are thousands of Christian groups, and each understands some scriptures differently than others. The unity that should prevail among believers does not, despite their best efforts. Clearly more revelation is needed.

===Why not accept On-going divine revelation? ===
* Why not accept the possibility that Joseph Smith had revelations that came from Jesus Christ?
* Why not accept the possibility that Joseph Smith was called by GOD, like Paul?
* Why not accept that the revelations of Joseph Smith are inspired by GOD? Surely Joseph Smith preached of Jesus Christ, like the New testament apostles did.
* What is the difference between the first century and today?

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|PMG1}} Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service, (2004), 31–46
#{{note|Ensign1}} Jean Knight Pace, “The Joyful Surprise of Motherhood,” Ensign, Jan 2006, 54–57

{{FurtherReading}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[de:Bibel/Fortdauernde Offenbarungen nicht notwendig]]
[[fr:Bible/On-going divine revelation not necessary]]

Question: Why do Mormon's believe that ongoing divine revelation is necessary?

2012-11-22T09:00:23Z

MikeSantoy: /* If one is going to accept on-going revelation after Jesus ascended to heaven */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{BiblePortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==
{{Epigraph|"Jesus Christ, the final and complete revelation of God ({{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}) has made "further revelation" obsolete and unnecessary. To claim to have such a "revelation" is to say that Jesus really wasn't what and who He said He was, and who the Bible describes Him as being. In actuality, it is the simple fact that Mormonism's teachings cannot be supported from the Bible that drives the leadership to find another source of authority. Everything that has ever claimed to be "further revelation" has failed the test of Scripture, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price" —Copyright 2005-2006 Alpha and Omega Ministries|}}

Critics claim that there is no need for on-going divine revelation today; some even charge that claims of visions from God or revelations to a modern prophet is a blasphemous idea.

{{CriticalSources}}

===Conclusion===

If revelation was meant to cease, it would have ceased after Jesus ascended to heaven, but the Bible teaches that revelations and visions didn't cease.

"Biblical history has recorded many instances of God speaking to prophets, and it also tells of many instances of apostasy. To end each period of general apostasy, God has shown His love for His children by calling another prophet and giving him priesthood authority to restore and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ anew. In essence, the prophet acts as a steward to oversee the household of God here on earth. Such periods of time headed by prophetic responsibility are called dispensations" {{ref|PMG1}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{SeeAlso|Bible/"Adding_to"_or_"taking_away_from"|l1="Adding to" or "taking away from" God's word}}

'''{{b||Matthew|28|19-20}}'''
:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

'''{{b||Mark|16|15}}'''
:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

'''{{b||John|20|30-31}}'''
:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

'''We have the teachings of Jesus in the four gospels, why do we need the Book of Revelation, or the epistles of Paul?'''
LDS scriptures clarify the importance of revelation.

===What about '''{{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}'''? ===
:1 GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It is true that Jesus' coming in the flesh was the most complete revelation of the divine nature. But, these verses do not say that revelation thereby ceased. None of the New Testament was written until well after Jesus died and was resurrected—the early Christians do not seem to have regarded his coming as a bar to on-going revelation and scripture. Even after Jesus' ascension, he continued to give revelation to those chosen to lead his Church. For example, the Lord revealed to John, "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter" '''{{b||Revelation|1|19}}'''

===What about {{scripture|1|Corinthians |13|8}}? ===

This scripture is not talking about the last days.

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away" (KJV)

"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away" (NIV)

"Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away" (NASB)

"Our jobs will not be eternal; much of our formal education will be forgotten; our Church callings will come to an end" {{ref|Ensign1}}

===Why do we need revelation today?===

*1) We see in the Bible that God always revealed new things to the people
*2) Prophets and apostles in the Bible always had visions and revelations
*3) New revelations and visions are necessary for our progression as a church and people: time and circumstances always change
*4) So that we can have success in our own time and circumstances
*5) Despite the best efforts of Christian believers, the Bible has not proved capable of answering all questions in a universal way. There are thousands of Christian groups, and each understands some scriptures differently than others. The unity that should prevail among believers does not, despite their best efforts. Clearly more revelation is needed.

===If one is going to accept on-going revelation after Jesus ascended to heaven===
* Then why not accept the possibility that Joseph Smith had revelations that came from Jesus Christ?
* Why not accept the possibility that Joseph Smith was called by GOD, like Paul?
* Why not accept that the revelations of Joseph Smith are inspired by GOD? Surely Joseph Smith preached of Jesus Christ, like the New testament apostles did.
* Why not accept On-going divine revelation?
* What is the difference between the first century and today?

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|PMG1}} Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service, (2004), 31–46
#{{note|Ensign1}} Jean Knight Pace, “The Joyful Surprise of Motherhood,” Ensign, Jan 2006, 54–57

{{FurtherReading}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[de:Bibel/Fortdauernde Offenbarungen nicht notwendig]]
[[fr:Bible/On-going divine revelation not necessary]]

Question: Why do Mormon's believe that ongoing divine revelation is necessary?

2012-11-22T08:59:29Z

MikeSantoy: /* If one is going to accept on-going revelation after Jesus ascended to heaven */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{BiblePortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==
{{Epigraph|"Jesus Christ, the final and complete revelation of God ({{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}) has made "further revelation" obsolete and unnecessary. To claim to have such a "revelation" is to say that Jesus really wasn't what and who He said He was, and who the Bible describes Him as being. In actuality, it is the simple fact that Mormonism's teachings cannot be supported from the Bible that drives the leadership to find another source of authority. Everything that has ever claimed to be "further revelation" has failed the test of Scripture, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price" —Copyright 2005-2006 Alpha and Omega Ministries|}}

Critics claim that there is no need for on-going divine revelation today; some even charge that claims of visions from God or revelations to a modern prophet is a blasphemous idea.

{{CriticalSources}}

===Conclusion===

If revelation was meant to cease, it would have ceased after Jesus ascended to heaven, but the Bible teaches that revelations and visions didn't cease.

"Biblical history has recorded many instances of God speaking to prophets, and it also tells of many instances of apostasy. To end each period of general apostasy, God has shown His love for His children by calling another prophet and giving him priesthood authority to restore and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ anew. In essence, the prophet acts as a steward to oversee the household of God here on earth. Such periods of time headed by prophetic responsibility are called dispensations" {{ref|PMG1}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{SeeAlso|Bible/"Adding_to"_or_"taking_away_from"|l1="Adding to" or "taking away from" God's word}}

'''{{b||Matthew|28|19-20}}'''
:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

'''{{b||Mark|16|15}}'''
:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

'''{{b||John|20|30-31}}'''
:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

'''We have the teachings of Jesus in the four gospels, why do we need the Book of Revelation, or the epistles of Paul?'''
LDS scriptures clarify the importance of revelation.

===What about '''{{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}'''? ===
:1 GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It is true that Jesus' coming in the flesh was the most complete revelation of the divine nature. But, these verses do not say that revelation thereby ceased. None of the New Testament was written until well after Jesus died and was resurrected—the early Christians do not seem to have regarded his coming as a bar to on-going revelation and scripture. Even after Jesus' ascension, he continued to give revelation to those chosen to lead his Church. For example, the Lord revealed to John, "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter" '''{{b||Revelation|1|19}}'''

===What about {{scripture|1|Corinthians |13|8}}? ===

This scripture is not talking about the last days.

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away" (KJV)

"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away" (NIV)

"Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away" (NASB)

"Our jobs will not be eternal; much of our formal education will be forgotten; our Church callings will come to an end" {{ref|Ensign1}}

===Why do we need revelation today?===

*1) We see in the Bible that God always revealed new things to the people
*2) Prophets and apostles in the Bible always had visions and revelations
*3) New revelations and visions are necessary for our progression as a church and people: time and circumstances always change
*4) So that we can have success in our own time and circumstances
*5) Despite the best efforts of Christian believers, the Bible has not proved capable of answering all questions in a universal way. There are thousands of Christian groups, and each understands some scriptures differently than others. The unity that should prevail among believers does not, despite their best efforts. Clearly more revelation is needed.

===If one is going to accept on-going revelation after Jesus ascended to heaven===
* Then why not accept the possibility that Joseph Smith had revelations that came from Jesus Christ?
* Why not accept the possibility that Joseph Smith was called by GOD, like Paul?
* Why not accept that the revelations of Joseph Smith are inspired by GOD? Surely Joseph Smith preached of Jesus Christ, like the New testament apostles did.
* Why not accept On-going divine revelation?
* What is the difference between the first century and today?
* What is the difference between thousands of years of revelations, as recorded in the Bible, and today?
* Are we all require to built an ark? because supposedly no new instructions are given?

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|PMG1}} Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service, (2004), 31–46
#{{note|Ensign1}} Jean Knight Pace, “The Joyful Surprise of Motherhood,” Ensign, Jan 2006, 54–57

{{FurtherReading}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[de:Bibel/Fortdauernde Offenbarungen nicht notwendig]]
[[fr:Bible/On-going divine revelation not necessary]]

Question: Why do Mormon's believe that ongoing divine revelation is necessary?

2012-11-22T08:47:46Z

MikeSantoy: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{BiblePortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==
{{Epigraph|"Jesus Christ, the final and complete revelation of God ({{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}) has made "further revelation" obsolete and unnecessary. To claim to have such a "revelation" is to say that Jesus really wasn't what and who He said He was, and who the Bible describes Him as being. In actuality, it is the simple fact that Mormonism's teachings cannot be supported from the Bible that drives the leadership to find another source of authority. Everything that has ever claimed to be "further revelation" has failed the test of Scripture, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price" —Copyright 2005-2006 Alpha and Omega Ministries|}}

Critics claim that there is no need for on-going divine revelation today; some even charge that claims of visions from God or revelations to a modern prophet is a blasphemous idea.

{{CriticalSources}}

===Conclusion===

If revelation was meant to cease, it would have ceased after Jesus ascended to heaven, but the Bible teaches that revelations and visions didn't cease.

"Biblical history has recorded many instances of God speaking to prophets, and it also tells of many instances of apostasy. To end each period of general apostasy, God has shown His love for His children by calling another prophet and giving him priesthood authority to restore and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ anew. In essence, the prophet acts as a steward to oversee the household of God here on earth. Such periods of time headed by prophetic responsibility are called dispensations" {{ref|PMG1}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{SeeAlso|Bible/"Adding_to"_or_"taking_away_from"|l1="Adding to" or "taking away from" God's word}}

'''{{b||Matthew|28|19-20}}'''
:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

'''{{b||Mark|16|15}}'''
:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

'''{{b||John|20|30-31}}'''
:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

'''We have the teachings of Jesus in the four gospels, why do we need the Book of Revelation, or the epistles of Paul?'''
LDS scriptures clarify the importance of revelation.

===What about '''{{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}'''? ===
:1 GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It is true that Jesus' coming in the flesh was the most complete revelation of the divine nature. But, these verses do not say that revelation thereby ceased. None of the New Testament was written until well after Jesus died and was resurrected—the early Christians do not seem to have regarded his coming as a bar to on-going revelation and scripture. Even after Jesus' ascension, he continued to give revelation to those chosen to lead his Church. For example, the Lord revealed to John, "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter" '''{{b||Revelation|1|19}}'''

===What about {{scripture|1|Corinthians |13|8}}? ===

This scripture is not talking about the last days.

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away" (KJV)

"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away" (NIV)

"Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away" (NASB)

"Our jobs will not be eternal; much of our formal education will be forgotten; our Church callings will come to an end" {{ref|Ensign1}}

===Why do we need revelation today?===

*1) We see in the Bible that God always revealed new things to the people
*2) Prophets and apostles in the Bible always had visions and revelations
*3) New revelations and visions are necessary for our progression as a church and people: time and circumstances always change
*4) So that we can have success in our own time and circumstances
*5) Despite the best efforts of Christian believers, the Bible has not proved capable of answering all questions in a universal way. There are thousands of Christian groups, and each understands some scriptures differently than others. The unity that should prevail among believers does not, despite their best efforts. Clearly more revelation is needed.

===If one is going to accept on-going revelation after Jesus ascended to heaven===
* Then why not accept the possibility that Joseph Smith had revelations that came from Jesus Christ?
* Why not accept the possibility that Joseph Smith was called by GOD, like Paul?
* Why not accept that the revelations of Joseph Smith are inspired by GOD? Surely Joseph Smith preached of Jesus Christ, like the New testament apostles did.
* Why not accept On-going divine revelation in modern times?
* What is the difference between the first century and today?
* What is the difference between thousands of years of revelations, as recorded in the Bible, and today?
* Are we all require to built an ark? because supposedly no new instructions are given?

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|PMG1}} Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service, (2004), 31–46
#{{note|Ensign1}} Jean Knight Pace, “The Joyful Surprise of Motherhood,” Ensign, Jan 2006, 54–57

{{FurtherReading}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[de:Bibel/Fortdauernde Offenbarungen nicht notwendig]]
[[fr:Bible/On-going divine revelation not necessary]]

Question: Why do Mormon's believe that ongoing divine revelation is necessary?

2012-11-22T08:44:22Z

MikeSantoy:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{BiblePortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==
{{Epigraph|"Jesus Christ, the final and complete revelation of God ({{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}) has made "further revelation" obsolete and unnecessary. To claim to have such a "revelation" is to say that Jesus really wasn't what and who He said He was, and who the Bible describes Him as being. In actuality, it is the simple fact that Mormonism's teachings cannot be supported from the Bible that drives the leadership to find another source of authority. Everything that has ever claimed to be "further revelation" has failed the test of Scripture, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price" —Copyright 2005-2006 Alpha and Omega Ministries|}}

Critics claim that there is no need for on-going divine revelation today; some even charge that claims of visions from God or revelations to a modern prophet is a blasphemous idea.

{{CriticalSources}}

===Conclusion===

If revelation was meant to cease, it would have ceased after Jesus ascended to heaven, but the Bible teaches that revelations and visions didn't cease.

"Biblical history has recorded many instances of God speaking to prophets, and it also tells of many instances of apostasy. To end each period of general apostasy, God has shown His love for His children by calling another prophet and giving him priesthood authority to restore and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ anew. In essence, the prophet acts as a steward to oversee the household of God here on earth. Such periods of time headed by prophetic responsibility are called dispensations" {{ref|PMG1}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{SeeAlso|Bible/"Adding_to"_or_"taking_away_from"|l1="Adding to" or "taking away from" God's word}}

'''{{b||Matthew|28|19-20}}'''
:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

'''{{b||Mark|16|15}}'''
:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

'''{{b||John|20|30-31}}'''
:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

'''We have the teachings of Jesus and the four Gospels, why do we need the Book of Revelation, or the epistles of Paul?'''
LDS scriptures teach the importance of revelation.

===What about '''{{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}'''? ===
:1 GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It is true that Jesus' coming in the flesh was the most complete revelation of the divine nature. But, these verses do not say that revelation thereby ceased. None of the New Testament was written until well after Jesus died and was resurrected—the early Christians do not seem to have regarded his coming as a bar to on-going revelation and scripture. Even after Jesus' ascension, he continued to give revelation to those chosen to lead his Church. For example, the Lord revealed to John, "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter" '''{{b||Revelation|1|19}}'''

===What about {{scripture|1|Corinthians |13|8}}? ===

This scripture is not talking about the last days.

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away" (KJV)

"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away" (NIV)

"Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away" (NASB)

"Our jobs will not be eternal; much of our formal education will be forgotten; our Church callings will come to an end" {{ref|Ensign1}}

===Why do we need revelation today?===

*1) We see in the Bible that God always revealed new things to the people
*2) Prophets and apostles in the Bible always had visions and revelations
*3) New revelations and visions are necessary for our progression as a church and people: time and circumstances always change
*4) So that we can have success in our own time and circumstances
*5) Despite the best efforts of Christian believers, the Bible has not proved capable of answering all questions in a universal way. There are thousands of Christian groups, and each understands some scriptures differently than others. The unity that should prevail among believers does not, despite their best efforts. Clearly more revelation is needed.

===If one is going to accept on-going revelation after Jesus ascended to heaven===
* Then why not accept the possibility that Joseph Smith had revelations that came from Jesus Christ?
* Why not accept the possibility that Joseph Smith was called by GOD, like Paul?
* Why not accept that the revelations of Joseph Smith are inspired by GOD? Surely Joseph Smith preached of Jesus Christ, like the New testament apostles did.
* Why not accept On-going divine revelation in modern times?
* What is the difference between the first century and today?
* What is the difference between thousands of years of revelations, as recorded in the Bible, and today?
* Are we all require to built an ark? because supposedly no new instructions are given?

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|PMG1}} Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service, (2004), 31–46
#{{note|Ensign1}} Jean Knight Pace, “The Joyful Surprise of Motherhood,” Ensign, Jan 2006, 54–57

{{FurtherReading}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[de:Bibel/Fortdauernde Offenbarungen nicht notwendig]]
[[fr:Bible/On-going divine revelation not necessary]]

Question: Why do Mormon's believe that ongoing divine revelation is necessary?

2012-11-22T08:07:10Z

MikeSantoy: /* Is the Bible enough for our salvation? */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{BiblePortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==
{{Epigraph|"Jesus Christ, the final and complete revelation of God ({{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}) has made "further revelation" obsolete and unnecessary. To claim to have such a "revelation" is to say that Jesus really wasn't what and who He said He was, and who the Bible describes Him as being. In actuality, it is the simple fact that Mormonism's teachings cannot be supported from the Bible that drives the leadership to find another source of authority. Everything that has ever claimed to be "further revelation" has failed the test of Scripture, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price" —Copyright 2005-2006 Alpha and Omega Ministries|}}

Critics claim that there is no need for on-going divine revelation today; some even charge that claims of visions from God or revelations to a modern prophet is a blasphemous idea.

{{CriticalSources}}

===Conclusion===

If revelation was meant to cease, it would have ceased after Jesus ascended to heaven, but the Bible teaches that revelations and visions didn't cease.

"Biblical history has recorded many instances of God speaking to prophets, and it also tells of many instances of apostasy. To end each period of general apostasy, God has shown His love for His children by calling another prophet and giving him priesthood authority to restore and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ anew. In essence, the prophet acts as a steward to oversee the household of God here on earth. Such periods of time headed by prophetic responsibility are called dispensations" {{ref|PMG1}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{SeeAlso|Bible/"Adding_to"_or_"taking_away_from"|l1="Adding to" or "taking away from" God's word}}

'''{{b||Matthew|28|19-20}}'''
:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

'''{{b||Mark|16|15}}'''
:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

'''{{b||John|20|30-31}}'''
:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

'''If the teachings of Jesus are the final revelation, then why do we need the Book of Revelation, or the epistles of Paul?'''

===What about '''{{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}'''? ===
:1 GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It is true that Jesus' coming in the flesh was the most complete revelation of the divine nature. But, these verses do not say that revelation thereby ceased. None of the New Testament was written until well after Jesus died and was resurrected—the early Christians do not seem to have regarded his coming as a bar to on-going revelation and scripture. Even after Jesus' ascension, he continued to give revelation to those chosen to lead his Church. For example, the Lord revealed to John, "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter" '''{{b||Revelation|1|19}}'''

===What about {{scripture|1|Corinthians |13|8}}? ===

This scripture is not talking about the last days.

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away" (KJV)

"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away" (NIV)

"Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away" (NASB)

"Our jobs will not be eternal; much of our formal education will be forgotten; our Church callings will come to an end" {{ref|Ensign1}}

===Why do we need revelation today?===

*1) We see in the Bible that God always revealed new things to the people
*2) Prophets and apostles in the Bible always had visions and revelations
*3) New revelations and visions are necessary for our progression as a church and people: time and circumstances always change
*4) So that we can have success in our own time and circumstances
*5) Despite the best efforts of Christian believers, the Bible has not proved capable of answering all questions in a universal way. There are thousands of Christian groups, and each understands some scriptures differently than others. The unity that should prevail among believers does not, despite their best efforts. Clearly more revelation is needed.

===If one is going to accept on-going revelation after Jesus ascended to heaven===
* Then why not accept the possibility that Joseph Smith had revelations that came from Jesus Christ?
* Why not accept the possibility that Joseph Smith was called by GOD, like Paul?
* Why not accept that the revelations of Joseph Smith are inspired by GOD? Surely Joseph Smith preached of Jesus Christ, like the New testament apostles did.
* Why not accept On-going divine revelation in modern times?
* What is the difference between the first century and today?
* What is the difference between thousands of years of revelations, as recorded in the Bible, and today?
* Are we all require to built an ark? because supposedly no new instructions are given?

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|PMG1}} Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service, (2004), 31–46
#{{note|Ensign1}} Jean Knight Pace, “The Joyful Surprise of Motherhood,” Ensign, Jan 2006, 54–57

{{FurtherReading}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[de:Bibel/Fortdauernde Offenbarungen nicht notwendig]]
[[fr:Bible/On-going divine revelation not necessary]]

Question: Why do Mormon's believe that ongoing divine revelation is necessary?

2012-11-22T08:04:47Z

MikeSantoy:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{BiblePortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==
{{Epigraph|"Jesus Christ, the final and complete revelation of God ({{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}) has made "further revelation" obsolete and unnecessary. To claim to have such a "revelation" is to say that Jesus really wasn't what and who He said He was, and who the Bible describes Him as being. In actuality, it is the simple fact that Mormonism's teachings cannot be supported from the Bible that drives the leadership to find another source of authority. Everything that has ever claimed to be "further revelation" has failed the test of Scripture, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price" —Copyright 2005-2006 Alpha and Omega Ministries|}}

Critics claim that there is no need for on-going divine revelation today; some even charge that claims of visions from God or revelations to a modern prophet is a blasphemous idea.

{{CriticalSources}}

===Conclusion===

If revelation was meant to cease, it would have ceased after Jesus ascended to heaven, but the Bible teaches that revelations and visions didn't cease.

"Biblical history has recorded many instances of God speaking to prophets, and it also tells of many instances of apostasy. To end each period of general apostasy, God has shown His love for His children by calling another prophet and giving him priesthood authority to restore and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ anew. In essence, the prophet acts as a steward to oversee the household of God here on earth. Such periods of time headed by prophetic responsibility are called dispensations" {{ref|PMG1}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{SeeAlso|Bible/"Adding_to"_or_"taking_away_from"|l1="Adding to" or "taking away from" God's word}}

'''{{b||Matthew|28|19-20}}'''
:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

'''{{b||Mark|16|15}}'''
:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

'''{{b||John|20|30-31}}'''
:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

'''If the teachings of Jesus are the final revelation, then why do we need the Book of Revelation, or the epistles of Paul?'''

===What about '''{{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}'''? ===
:1 GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It is true that Jesus' coming in the flesh was the most complete revelation of the divine nature. But, these verses do not say that revelation thereby ceased. None of the New Testament was written until well after Jesus died and was resurrected—the early Christians do not seem to have regarded his coming as a bar to on-going revelation and scripture. Even after Jesus' ascension, he continued to give revelation to those chosen to lead his Church. For example, the Lord revealed to John, "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter" '''{{b||Revelation|1|19}}'''

===What about {{scripture|1|Corinthians |13|8}}? ===

This scripture is not talking about the last days.

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away" (KJV)

"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away" (NIV)

"Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away" (NASB)

"Our jobs will not be eternal; much of our formal education will be forgotten; our Church callings will come to an end" {{ref|Ensign1}}

===Why do we need revelation today?===

*1) We see in the Bible that God always revealed new things to the people
*2) Prophets and apostles in the Bible always had visions and revelations
*3) New revelations and visions are necessary for our progression as a church and people: time and circumstances always change
*4) So that we can have success in our own time and circumstances
*5) Despite the best efforts of Christian believers, the Bible has not proved capable of answering all questions in a universal way. There are thousands of Christian groups, and each understands some scriptures differently than others. The unity that should prevail among believers does not, despite their best efforts. Clearly more revelation is needed.

===Is the Bible enough for our salvation?===
The thing that leads to salvation, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It has always been the same, and was taught since Adam. It was also taught by the apostles. One might ask, that if the Bible was the only thing needed for our salvation, then why did people in the 1st century didn't have the whole Bible? Not all 27 books existed for most of the 1st century. Let alone that there was no Bible for the first 3 centuries. What did people have prior to that? Why assume that word of God was completed at the end of the first century? Was the word of GOD incomplete prior to that?

===If one is going to accept on-going revelation after Jesus ascended to heaven===
* Then why not accept the possibility that Joseph Smith had revelations that came from Jesus Christ?
* Why not accept the possibility that Joseph Smith was called by GOD, like Paul?
* Why not accept that the revelations of Joseph Smith are inspired by GOD? Surely Joseph Smith preached of Jesus Christ, like the New testament apostles did.
* Why not accept On-going divine revelation in modern times?
* What is the difference between the first century and today?
* What is the difference between thousands of years of revelations, as recorded in the Bible, and today?
* Are we all require to built an ark? because supposedly no new instructions are given?

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|PMG1}} Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service, (2004), 31–46
#{{note|Ensign1}} Jean Knight Pace, “The Joyful Surprise of Motherhood,” Ensign, Jan 2006, 54–57

{{FurtherReading}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[de:Bibel/Fortdauernde Offenbarungen nicht notwendig]]
[[fr:Bible/On-going divine revelation not necessary]]

Question: Why do Mormon's believe that ongoing divine revelation is necessary?

2012-11-22T07:54:51Z

MikeSantoy:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{BiblePortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==
{{Epigraph|"Jesus Christ, the final and complete revelation of God ({{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}) has made "further revelation" obsolete and unnecessary. To claim to have such a "revelation" is to say that Jesus really wasn't what and who He said He was, and who the Bible describes Him as being. In actuality, it is the simple fact that Mormonism's teachings cannot be supported from the Bible that drives the leadership to find another source of authority. Everything that has ever claimed to be "further revelation" has failed the test of Scripture, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price" —Copyright 2005-2006 Alpha and Omega Ministries|}}

Critics claim that there is no need for on-going divine revelation today; some even charge that claims of visions from God or revelations to a modern prophet is a blasphemous idea.

{{CriticalSources}}

===Conclusion===

If revelation was meant to cease, it would have ceased after Jesus ascended to heaven, but the Bible teaches that revelations and visions didn't cease.

"Biblical history has recorded many instances of God speaking to prophets, and it also tells of many instances of apostasy. To end each period of general apostasy, God has shown His love for His children by calling another prophet and giving him priesthood authority to restore and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ anew. In essence, the prophet acts as a steward to oversee the household of God here on earth. Such periods of time headed by prophetic responsibility are called dispensations" {{ref|PMG1}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{SeeAlso|Bible/"Adding_to"_or_"taking_away_from"|l1="Adding to" or "taking away from" God's word}}

'''{{b||Matthew|28|19-20}}'''
:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

'''{{b||Mark|16|15}}'''
:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

'''{{b||John|20|30-31}}'''
:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

'''If the teachings of Jesus are the final revelation, then why do we need the Book of Revelation, or the epistles of Paul?'''

===What about '''{{b||Hebrews|1|1-3}}'''? ===
:1 GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It is true that Jesus' coming in the flesh was the most complete revelation of the divine nature. But, these verses do not say that revelation thereby ceased. None of the New Testament was written until well after Jesus died and was resurrected—the early Christians do not seem to have regarded his coming as a bar to on-going revelation and scripture. Even after Jesus' ascension, he continued to give revelation to those chosen to lead his Church. For example, the Lord revealed to John, "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter" '''{{b||Revelation|1|19}}'''

===What about {{scripture|1|Corinthians |13|8}}? ===
"Our jobs will not be eternal; much of our formal education will be forgotten; our Church callings will come to an end. Only our eternally linked families, the knowledge we have gained, and the Christlike love we have developed will never fail"

===Why do we need revelation today?===

*1) We see in the Bible that God always revealed new things to the people
*2) Prophets and apostles in the Bible always had visions and revelations
*3) New revelations and visions are necessary for our progression as a church and people: time and circumstances always change
*4) So that we can have success in our own time and circumstances
*5) Despite the best efforts of Christian believers, the Bible has not proved capable of answering all questions in a universal way. There are thousands of Christian groups, and each understands some scriptures differently than others. The unity that should prevail among believers does not, despite their best efforts. Clearly more revelation is needed.

===Is the Bible enough for our salvation?===
The thing that leads to salvation, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It has always been the same, and was taught since Adam. It was also taught by the apostles. One might ask, that if the Bible was the only thing needed for our salvation, then why did people in the 1st century didn't have the whole Bible? Not all 27 books existed for most of the 1st century. Let alone that there was no Bible for the first 3 centuries. What did people have prior to that? Why assume that word of God was completed at the end of the first century? Was the word of GOD incomplete prior to that?

===If one is going to accept on-going revelation after Jesus ascended to heaven===
* Then why not accept the possibility that Joseph Smith had revelations that came from Jesus Christ?
* Why not accept the possibility that Joseph Smith was called by GOD, like Paul?
* Why not accept that the revelations of Joseph Smith are inspired by GOD? Surely Joseph Smith preached of Jesus Christ, like the New testament apostles did.
* Why not accept On-going divine revelation in modern times?
* What is the difference between the first century and today?
* What is the difference between thousands of years of revelations, as recorded in the Bible, and today?
* Are we all require to built an ark? because supposedly no new instructions are given?

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|by1}} Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service, (2004), 31–46

{{FurtherReading}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[de:Bibel/Fortdauernde Offenbarungen nicht notwendig]]
[[fr:Bible/On-going divine revelation not necessary]]

Mormonism and doctrine

2012-10-11T07:26:30Z

MikeSantoy: /* {{Church response label}} */

<noinclude>{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{summary}}</noinclude>
=[[Mormonism and doctrine]]=
<noinclude>
=={{Church response label}}==
<blockquote>
Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. 
:—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine Approaching Mormon Doctrine] (May 4, 2007)

The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him. Doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice. But in the end, just as in the New Testament church, the objective is not simply consensus among council members, but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader past or present necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well considered, opinion not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such. 
:— Elder D. Todd Christofferson, April 2012 General Conference, Sunday Morning Session. (April 1, 2012)

There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.” (Mormon 9:31)
:— Elder Neil L. Andersen, October 2012 General Conference, Saturday Afternoon Session. (October 6, 2012)
</blockquote>
</noinclude>

=={{Subarticles label}}==
==="Essentials" or Core doctrine===
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and doctrine/Official or core doctrine
|subject=Official or "core" doctrine
|summary=What constitutes official or "core" doctrine of the Church? Joseph Smith defined our fundamental core doctrine: "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." (''Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,'' p. 121.)
}}

===New doctrine===
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and doctrine/Establishing new doctrine
|subject=Establishing new doctrine
|summary=How is new doctrine established in the Church?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and doctrine/Changing
|subject=Changing doctrine
|summary=Is LDS doctrine constantly changing? Critics claim that Mormon doctrine is very elusive - very little is claimed to be official, which makes it easy to repudiate certain doctrines when they become unpleasant or unfashionable.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and doctrine/Publications
|subject=Church publications as doctrine
|summary=Are Church publications considered doctrine? Critics claim that anything that is, or ever was, officially published by the Church at any time ought to represent doctrine, thus define what Latter-day Saints ''really'' believe. However, just as Brigham Young taught principles that applied to the 19th-century saints, modern prophets teach us what we need for our particular time.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and doctrine/Official Church publications
|subject=Official Church publications
|summary=Critics claim that some publications are official Church publications when in reality they are not. Conversely, some critics claim that some publications are not official Church publications when in reality they are.
}}

===Past doctrine===
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and doctrine/Statements by past prophets
|subject=Statements by past prophets
|summary=Are statements of past prophets considered doctrine? Critics claim that anything that is, or ever was, officially published by the Church ought to represent doctrine.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and doctrine/Prophets are not infallible
|subject=Prophets are not infallible
|summary=Are prophets considered infallible? Critics sometimes impose absolutist assumptions on the Church and hold inerrantist beliefs about scriptures or prophets. Critics therefore insist that any statement by any LDS Church leader represents LDS doctrine and is thus something that is secretly believed, or that should be believed, by Latter-day Saints.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts
|subject=Repudiated concepts
|summary=Some teachings previously considered doctrinal have since been repudiated by the Church.
}}<noinclude>
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God
|subject=Adam-God
|summary=Brigham Young taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father. Since this teaching runs counter to the story told in Genesis and commonly accepted by Christians, critics accuse Brigham of being a false prophet. Also, because modern Latter-day Saints do not believe Brigham's "Adam-God" teachings, critics accuse Mormons of either changing their teachings or rejecting teachings of prophets they find uncomfortable or unsupportable.
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Blood atonement
|subject=Blood atonement
|summary=Critics claim that during the administration of Brigham Young apostates were secretly put to death. They claim this is in line with the teachings of LDS leaders at the time that apostasy was the unforgivable sin, and that the only thing an apostate could do to redeem himself was to give his own life, willingly or unwillingly.
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Repudiated_ideas
|subject=Race
|summary=Church leaders have specifically repudiated some ideas about race expressed by some leaders and members.
}}</noinclude>
{{:Eschatology}}
{{:Mormonism and doctrine/Miscellaneous}}
<noinclude>

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}</noinclude>

[[fr:Church doctrine]]
[[Category:Doctrine]]
[[Category:Prophets]]
</noinclude>

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2012-10-11T07:25:29Z

MikeSantoy: /* {{Subarticles label}} */

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Book of Mormon Problems

2012-06-07T08:41:21Z

MikeSantoy: /* */

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Book of Mormon Problems

2012-06-07T08:38:49Z

MikeSantoy: /* */

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Book of Mormon Problems

2012-06-07T08:20:28Z

MikeSantoy: /* */

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Book of Mormon Problems

2012-06-07T07:56:51Z

MikeSantoy: /* */