FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Possible contradictions in the Doctrine and Covenants
(Redirected from Doctrine and Covenants/Criticism/New Testament in Doctrine and Covenants)
The Doctrine and Covenants |
|
Possible contradictions in the Doctrine and Covenants
Jump to details:
- Question: Why does Doctrine and Covenants 132 speak favorably about some Old Testament practitioners of plural marriage, while Jacob 2 is negative?
- Question: Does Doctrine and Covenants 84 say that one cannot see God without holding the priesthood?
- Question: Who authored the Gospel of John?
Does the Book of Mormon condemn polygamy?
Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #64: What Does the Book of Mormon Say About Polygamy? (Video)
"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things"
Jacob 2:24-29 states:
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
Those who cite this as a condemnation of plural marriage generally refrain from citing the very next verse:
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. (Jacob 2:30).
The Book of Mormon makes it clear that the Lord may, under some circumstances, command the practice of plural marriage.
Why does Doctrine and Covenants 132 speak favorably about some Old Testament practitioners of plural marriage, while Jacob 2 is negative?
Jacob demonstrates that some of David and Solomon's actions were contrary to Torah, and contrary to God's established order
Jacob demonstrates that some of David and Solomon's actions were contrary to Torah, and contrary to God's established order. If God will not justify even the kings of Israel in such behavior (Jacob seems to argue) why do you think he will justify you in taking plural wives which I, Jacob, have not approved as God's representative among you?
On the other hand, the Doctrine and Covenants' intention is to explain under what circumstances God has and would not only permit but command plural marriage through his prophets.
These two texts are not discussing the same thing at all. This is not immediately obvious, but becomes clear as we look closer.
At some point after David and Solomon, it was encoded into Mosaic law that a man was not to have many wives
One of the challenges is that at some point after these events (David and Solomon), it was encoded into Mosaic law that a man was not to have many wives—and this (back when polygamy was still considered acceptable in mainstream Judaism) was later interpreted by the Rabbis to mean that a man could have as many as four wives.
This injunction on the number of wives seems to be carried over into the polemic given in Jacob. The key in this interpretation of the text is the phrase "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines...". This is a citation of the Old Testament text found in Deuteronomy 17:17, although the rendering is much closer to the NIV than to the KJV. (Deuteronomy in its present form was probably not written before the Lehites' departure, but a similar body of law and thought would have gone back to Lehi's day.)
Here is the relevant passage from the New International Version of the Bible (NIV), which describes the responsibilities and powers of the king.
Deuteronomy 17:14-20 (NIV, emphasis added)
- 14 When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,"
- 15 be sure to appoint over you the king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite.
- 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, "You are not to go back that way again."
- 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
- 18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites.
- 19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees
- 20 and not consider himself better than his brothers and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.
Compare this with the KJV:
Deuteronomy 17:14-20 (KJV, emphasis added)
- 14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
- 15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
- 16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
- 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
- 18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
- 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
- 20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.
It is probable that Jacob is effectively quoting this passage (or a precursor to it) from the Brass Plates
It is probable that Jacob is effectively quoting this passage (or a precursor to it) from the Brass Plates, and whether or not some of those wives/concubines were given to these men by God is to an extent irrelevant to his point. In other words, the passage in the Book of Mormon and the passage in the Doctrine and Covenants, quite possibly, are really not discussing the same issue at all.
Jacob was not just saying that David and Solomon had more than one wife, he says that they "truly had many wives," as if to say, "there is no question that David and Solomon had many wives." The fact that the Old Testament strictly forbade the practice of taking many wives for a king (both Solomon and David were kings) leads one to conclude that they were in violation of Torah. The reason to suggest it as a recitation of Deuteronomy 17:17 is because of the context.
If it is not a recitation, then there is no previous indication that this is an abomination (at least within the scriptures that we have today) and that this would be a new rule. How then could it be retroactively applied to Solomon and David? This ultimately is the point—Jacob was defending the new 'party line' on polygamy from the scriptures.
The Book of Mormon account is basing its statements on an interpretation of Mosaic Law to defend a new (to them) negative position on polygamy. The Doctrine and Covenants, by contrast, wishes to explain how and when polygamy can be acceptable to God. One states that the abomination of Solomon and David was in their breaking the commandments in Torah according to the text, and while there are many polygamous figures in the Old Testament, very few "truly had many wives." It is doubtful that the Nephite proponents of polygamy restricted their proof texts to only David and Solomon.
It was the murder of Uriah and the taking of his wife that was the sin David committed, not polygamy
What were the wrongdoings of David and Solomon from Jacob's perspective? Was polygamy the sinful act they committed, or was it something else? Obviously, polygamy was accepted by the Lord at times, since many of His prophets participated in the practice. In fact, the Bible says that God gave David his plural wives:
2 Samuel 12:7-8 (emphasis added)
- 7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
- 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
Would God give anyone something that was sinful, wrong, or evil? Absolutely not. If polygamy was not the sin that David committed, then what was it? The very next verse in the Bible explains the sin.
2 Samuel 12:9 (emphasis added)
- Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
It was the murder of Uriah and the taking of his wife that was the sin David committed, not polygamy. David already had plural wives. These wives were given to him by God. Polygamy was not the sin David was guilty of, but murder and coveting another's wife was. David committed this murder (or rather caused it to happen) so he could have Uriah's wife as his own. In other words, David took an additional wife that the Lord did not give him. But the fact that he had plural wives was in no wise a sin.
The Doctrine and Covenants confirms what the Bible tells us concerning this matter.
- David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife;
It was the fact that Solomon allowed some of his wives to turn his heart away from the Lord that resulted in sin, not polygamy
What of Solomon? Was polygamy his sin? Not according to the Bible.
1 Kings 11:1-6 (emphasis added)
- 1 BUT king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
- 2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
- 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
- 4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
- 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
- 6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
It was the fact that Solomon allowed some of his wives to turn his heart away from the Lord, just like Uriah's wife did with David, that resulted in sin or evil. It was not polygamy that was evil. The Book of Mormon explains that only when God commands it can a man have more than one wife at a time.
Now, let's return to the second chapter of Jacob:
Jacob 2꞉23 (emphasis added)
- But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures...
Remember that verse 30 could be the "exception clause." That is why it is important to look at the full account in the scriptures, and not selectivity pick one or two verses.
Jacob 2꞉23 (emphasis added)
- ...for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
The Lord had not given permission for the people to have more than one wife at that time. The people were selectively using the scriptures to obtain more than one wife. Because the Lord had not given His permission, it was wrong to have more than one wife at a time, and Jacob can demonstrate how both these kings were also condemned by the Law for their unapproved actions.
- Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
It was not the concubines or the multiple wives that was abominable, but the fact that not all of it was specifically approved by the Lord
It was not the concubines or the multiple wives that was abominable, it was abominable because there was some abuse and not all of it was specifically approved by the Lord.
- 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
- 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
- 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
- 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; OTHERWISE they shall hearken unto these things.
Their plural wives and concubines were an abomination in that not all of them were approved by the Lord. They were kings who used their temporal power to take that which God had not approved.
Critical sources |
Did early Church leaders state that the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy?
Critics of the Book of Mormon attempt to use the words of early LDS leaders to bolster their position. For example, note how the words of Orson Pratt are "mined" to support the critic's assertion that the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy:
| Reference | Original quote... | What the critics want the quote to say... |
|---|---|---|
| Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 221 quoting Orson Pratt in Journal of Discourses 6:351 | The Book of Mormon, therefore, is the only record (professing to be Divine) which condemns plurality of wives as being a practice exceedingly abominable before God. But even that sacred book makes an exception in substance as follows—"Except I the Lord command my people." The same Book of Mormon and the same article that commanded the Nephites that they should not marry more than one wife, made an exception. Let this be understood—"Unless I the Lord shall command them." We can draw the conclusion from this, that there were some things not right in the sight of God, unless he should command them. We can draw the same conclusion from the Bible, that there were many things which the Lord would not suffer his children to do, unless he particularly commanded them to do them. | The Book of Mormon, therefore, is the only record (professing to be divine) which condemns the plurality of wives as being a practice exceedingly abominable before God. |
The critics use this quote to state that Orson Pratt "admitted" that the Book of Mormon condemns plural marriage by extracting only the portion of his quote that mentions it. They omit Pratt's subsequent explanation regarding the exception mentioned in Jacob 2:30, thus implying that Pratt was making an "admission" that the Book of Mormon condemned polygamy.
The Smoot hearings
Jerald and Sandra Tanner quote Vol. 1, p. 480 of the Smoot hearings for this claim. They ignore the exchange on the very next page in which President Joseph F. Smith responds to this claim in the Senate, with the senate making the same error made by the Tanners and other critics.
Is Jacob 2:30 actually not saying that polygamy is an occasional exception to monogamy?
Introduction to Question
A splinter group of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints known as the "Doctrine of Christ" have been adamant that the Book of Mormon doesn’t actually condone polygamy under certain circumstances.
The focus is over Jacoh 2:30. Jacob is speaking to Nephite men and women. Here are the verses in question verbatim
- 23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
- 24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
- 25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
- 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
- 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
- 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
- 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
- 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
Those associated with the Doctrine of Christ have interpreted this verse in a variety of ways that do not include the "exception clause" provided by Jacob 2:30 that polygamy may be commanded by God when God needs to raise up seed.
This article will respond to the major arguments in favor of reinterpreting this passage.
Response to Question
"Command My People" May Mean "Move to a Different Location"
One of the arguments is that to "raise up seed", God wouldn’t need to command polygamy but, like Lehi, he could just command his covenant people to move to another location. In the case of Lehi, he was commanded to leave Jerusalem and sail to another location. At the beginning of 1 Nephi 7, Nephi informs us of the following:
- And now I would that ye might know, that after my father, Lehi, had made an end of prophesying concerning his seed, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto him again, saying that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone; but that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up seed unto the Lord in the land of promise.
Thus, the Lord commanded Lehi to get his sons to take daughters to wife and take them to the land of promise where they could raise up seed. Monogamously, the Nephites may very well have done that. There are many verses in the Book of Mormon that speak of the Nephites multiplying monogamously.
In Jacob 2 itself Jacob declares:
- Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
But verse 30 does not entirely rule out that polygamy might be among the strategies the Lord might pursue in order to raise up seed. Leading people away from hostile environments might only be one of those strategies. Saying that verse 30 totally rules out polygamy is thus a form of eisegesis.
The Book of Mormon clearly states that the David and Solomon’s sin was having many wives and concubines
The next major assertion is that Jacob flatly condemns polygamy in his discourse. At first blush, this assertion seems to be entirely correct. Jacob 2:25 says:
- Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
There is a lot more complexity to Jacob’s assertion though. We have outlined that complexity in the article below.
As a clue to some of the complexity, several biblical characters practiced plural marriage and they did not receive condemnation from neither God nor Jacob.
Richard and Pamela Price's Interpretation
Richard Price "is a Reorganization conservative who interprets redirection in the church’s policy and doctrine as evidence of apostacy [sic] from the truths of the Restoration. He has become the chief spokesman for Reorganization fundamentalists, and a rival church organization is now developing around him."[1] Him and his wife Pamela are the authors of the three-volume series Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy.
They claim the following:
The true interpretation of the passage shows that it is definitely monogamous, and that it is in harmony with all the rest of the revelation which the Lord gave through Jacob. The true interpretation is:This is the true meaning of this passage—and therefore it condemns polygamy, rather than justifying it as the Mormon Church leaders claim.[2]
- For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up [righteous] seed unto me, I will command my people [the Lord will be their commander—He will give them commandments to obey]: otherwise [if the Lord is not their commander; or they do not obey His commandments], they shall hearken unto these things [they shall practice the sins of polygamy].
Other authors have followed their lead in interpreting Jacob 2:30 this way.
Gregory L. Smith pointed out the major flaws of their argument in a post on the FAIR Blog:
This is certainly a creative reading. I see a few problems, however:
- The reading requires the "shall hearken" to be read as predictive (what will happen), not imperative (what should happen). Yet, in Joseph’s day, shall is typically an imperative when applied in the second and third person, not a future tense. See Webster’s 1828 dictionary, "shall," definition #2.
- It seems strange for the Lord to say simply that He will be "their commander,"–the verse is clearly talking about commanding SOMETHING. And, it involves the Lord "will"[ing] something that He might not will in other situations.
- It ignores the fact that Jacob is almost certainly commenting on Deuteronomic (or Deuteronomy-like) writing about plural marriage in Judaic kings, some of whom clearly had wives given them by God. (e.g., 2 Sam 11:8) See here and here for analysis on these lines by FAIR.[3]
Conclusion
These rebuttals should suffice in demonstrating that the major arguments in favor of reinterpretation are all either false or non-determinative.
Gospel Topics: The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that the marriage of one man to one woman is God’s standard, except at specific periods when He has declared otherwise
"Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah," Gospel Topics on LDS.org
The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that the marriage of one man to one woman is God’s standard, except at specific periods when He has declared otherwise. [4]
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ Roger D. Launius, "An Ambivalent Rejection: Baptism for the Dead and the Reorganized Church Experience," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 23, no. 2 (Summer 1990): 61n1. For more on Price, see William D. Russell, "Richard Price: Leading Publicist of the Reorganized Church’s Schismatics," in Differing Visions: Dissenters in Mormon History, ed. Roger D. Launius and Linda Thatcher (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 319–40.
- ↑ Richard Price and Pamela Price, Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, 3 vols. (Independence, MO: Price Publishing Co., 2000), 1:226.
- ↑ Gregory L. Smith, "Plural marriage ponderings: An RLDS/CoC apologetic for Jacob 2:30," FAIR Blog, February 4, 2008, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2008/02/04/plural-marriage-ponderings-an-rldscoc-apologetic-for-jacob-230.
- ↑ "Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah," Gospel Topics on LDS.org. (2013)
Accounts |
|
Historical context |
|
Doctrinal impact |
Possible contradictions in the Doctrine and Covenants
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, “God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear,” Ensign, Oct 1984, 2 off-site
Critics of Mormonism have delighted in the discrepancies between the canonical [1838 PGP] account and earlier renditions, especially one written in Smith's own hand in 1832. For example, in the 1832 version, Jesus appears to Smith alone, and does all the talking himself. Such complaints, however, are much ado about relatively nothing. Any good lawyer (or historian) would expect to find contradictions or competing narratives written down years apart and decades after the event. And despite the contradictions, key elements abide. In each case, Jesus appears to Smith in a vision. In each case, Smith is blessed with a revelation. In each case, God tells him to remain aloof from all Christian denominations, as something better is in store.
—Stephen Prothero, American Jesus: How the Son of God Became a National Icon (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003), 171.
Why did Joseph wait 12 years to record his First Vision?
President Dallin H. Oaks explained, "As a boy, Joseph Smith had not [kept a record]. His formal education was limited, paper was expensive and it was not customary for poor farm boys in the United States to keep journals. That is why we lack contemporaneous accounts of his earliest visions."[1]
Joseph Smith gave several accounts of the First Vision that include different details
- Some charge that differences in the accounts show that he changed and embellished his story over time, and that he therefore had no such vision.[2]
- It is claimed by some that the Church has not discussed these accounts in official Church publications.
- One critic of the Church states, "I learned that Joseph Smith provided multiple and varying accounts of his first vision story, and that some of these accounts (e.g., his descriptions of the Godhead) seemed to evolve over time to correspond with his own changing beliefs." [3]
Joseph tailored the story and details included of his vision based upon his audience
Joseph adjusted and emphasized certain portions of his narrative of the First Vision to account for his audience, as well as to incorporate his evolving understanding of Church doctrine. This is not unusual:
We often edit or entirely rewrite our previous experiences—unknowingly and unconsciously—in light of what we now know or believe. The result can be a skewed rendering of a specific incident, or even of an extended period in our lives, that says more about how we feel now than what happened then. Thus, without knowing it, we can modify our own history.” [4]
The Church has published information about the various First Vision accounts since at least 1970
The Church has published information about the various First Vision accounts since at least 1970. Critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints often seek to point out differences between the various accounts which Joseph Smith gave of his First Vision. In defense of their position that the Prophet changed his story over a six year period (1832 to 1838) they claim that the earliest followers of Joseph Smith either didn’t know about the First Vision, or seem to have been confused about it. The Church, however, has discussed the various accounts in a number of publications. Joseph Smith's various accounts of the First Vision were targeted at different audiences, and had different purposes. They, however, show a remarkable degree of harmony between them. There is no evidence that the early leaders of the LDS Church did not understand that the Prophet saw two Divine Personages during his inaugural theophany.
A graphical comparison of the details of Joseph Smith's accounts of the First Vision. Image courtesy of LDS.net. Original may be viewed at LDS.net page "Why Are There Differences Between Joseph Smith’s 4 First Vision Accounts?" off-site
Steven C. Harper, "Four Accounts and Three Critiques of Joseph Smith’s First Vision"
Steven C. Harper, Proceedings of the 2011 FAIR Conference, (August 2011)There are essentially three arguments against the first vision. The minister to whom Joseph reported the event announced that there were no such things these days. More than a century later Fawn Brodie wrote with literary grace to mask historical deficiencies that Joseph concocted the vision years after he said it happened. Then a generation later Wesley Walters charged Joseph with inventing revivalism when a lack of historical evidence proved that there was none, and therefore no subsequent vision as a result. So by now it has become a foregone conclusion for some there are no such things as visions, and Joseph failed to mention his experience for years and then gave conflicting accounts that didn’t match historical facts.
Click here to view the complete article
Richard J. Maynes: "Joseph wrote or dictated four known accounts of his First Vision"
Elder Richard J. Maynes speaking at the Worldwide YSA Devotional held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on 1 May 2016. https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/worldwide-devotional/2016/05?lang=eng Image from LDS.org
Elder Richard J. Maynes, Presidency of the Seventy, at the Worldwide Young Adult Devotional held 1 May 2016 in the Salt Lake Tabernacle:
Let me share with you some historical context leading up to Joseph Smith's First Vision...Joseph wrote or dictated four known accounts of his First Vision. Additionally, his contemporaries recorded their memories of what they heard Joseph say about the vision; five such accounts are known. It is a blessing to have these records. They make Joseph’s First Vision the best-documented vision in history. I encourage you to visit history.lds.org to learn more about the accounts and see how they work together to paint a more complete picture...Like the individual New Testament Gospels that together more completely describe Christ’s life and ministry, each one of the accounts describing Joseph’s First Vision adds unique detail and perspective to the total experience. They together tell Joseph’s consistent, harmonious story. They all emphasize that there was confusion and strife among Christian churches, that Joseph desired to know which — if any — was right, that he searched the scriptures and prayed, that a light descended from heaven, and that divine beings appeared and answered his prayer.—(Click here to continue) [5]
Gospel Topics: "The various accounts of the First Vision tell a consistent story, though naturally they differ in emphasis and detail"
Gospel Topics on LDS.org:
The various accounts of the First Vision tell a consistent story, though naturally they differ in emphasis and detail. Historians expect that when an individual retells an experience in multiple settings to different audiences over many years, each account will emphasize various aspects of the experience and contain unique details. Indeed, differences similar to those in the First Vision accounts exist in the multiple scriptural accounts of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus and the Apostles’ experience on the Mount of Transfiguration.3 Yet despite the differences, a basic consistency remains across all the accounts of the First Vision. Some have mistakenly argued that any variation in the retelling of the story is evidence of fabrication. To the contrary, the rich historical record enables us to learn more about this remarkable event than we could if it were less well documented. [6]—(Click here to continue)
Seminary Manual (2013): "Joseph Smith emphasized different aspects of his vision in his multiple accounts"
Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual (2013), LESSON 6: Joseph Smith—History 1:1–20:
Just as Joseph Smith emphasized different aspects of his vision in his multiple accounts, the Apostle Paul emphasized different aspects of his vision of the Savior to different audiences (see Acts 9:1–9; Acts 22:5–11; Acts 26:12–20). Why do you think Joseph Smith and Paul emphasized different things each time they related the accounts of their visions? [7]
Backman (1985): "On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his sacred experience of 1820"
Milton V. Backman, Ensign (January 1985):
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. The four surviving recitals of this theophany were prepared or rendered through different scribes, at different times, from a different perspective, for different purposes and to different audiences.1 It is not surprising, therefore, that each of them emphasizes different aspects of his experience.[8]
Allen (1970): "the Prophet described his experience to friends and acquaintances at least as early as 1831-32...he continued to do so in varying detail until the year of his death"
James B. Allen, Improvement Era (April 1970):
Nevertheless, it can now be demonstrated that the Prophet described his experience to friends and acquaintances at least as early as 1831-32, and that he continued to do so in varying detail until the year of his death, 1844. We presently know of at least eight contemporary documents that were written during his lifetime.[9]
Neuenschwander (2009): "Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experience...it became the founding revelation of the Restoration"
Dennis B. Neuenschwander, Ensign (January 2009):
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. [10]
Gordon B. Hinckley (1984): "I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision"
Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign (October 1984):
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.[11]
Prothero (2003): "in the 1832 version, Jesus appears to Smith alone, and does all the talking himself. Such complaints, however, are much ado about relatively nothing"
Stephen Prothero, American Jesus: How the Son of God Became a National Icon (2003):
Critics of Mormonism have delighted in the discrepancies between the canonical [1838 PGP] account and earlier renditions, especially one written in Smith's own hand in 1832. For example, in the 1832 version, Jesus appears to Smith alone, and does all the talking himself. Such complaints, however, are much ado about relatively nothing. Any good lawyer (or historian) would expect to find contradictions or competing narratives written down years apart and decades after the event. And despite the contradictions, key elements abide. In each case, Jesus appears to Smith in a vision. In each case, Smith is blessed with a revelation. In each case, God tells him to remain aloof from all Christian denominations, as something better is in store.[12]
Did the details of Joseph’s First Vision experience appear to have changed when communicating to his followers such that the elders of the Church did not know that Joseph saw two personages?
Early Church leaders sometimes mentioned the word "angel" in relation to the First Vision
The following quotes are often used to support the assertion that Church leaders did not understand the nature of the First Vision:
- Brigham Young “The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven ... but He did send his angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong.” (Brigham Young, (1855) Journal of Discourses 2:171.)
- Wilford Woodruff “The same organization and Gospel that Christ died for ... is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy angel from God, out of heaven, who held converse with man, and revealed unto him the darkness that enveloped the world ... He told him the Gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of His kingdom in the world ... Joseph was strengthened by the Spirit and power of God, and was enabled to listen to the teachings of the angel. ... The man to whom the angel appeared obeyed the Gospel.” (Journal of Discourses, vol.2, 1855, pp.196-197)
- George A. Smith “He [Joseph Smith] went humbly before the Lord and inquired of Him, and the Lord answered his prayer, and revealed to Joseph, by the ministration of angels, the true condition of the religious world. When the holy angel appeared, Joseph inquired which of all these denominations was right and which he should join, and was told they were all wrong.” (George A. Smith, (1863) Journal of Discourses 12:334.)
- John Taylor “How was it, and which was right? None of them was right, just as it was when the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right. What, none of them? No. We will not stop to argue that question; the angel merely told him to join none of them that none of them were right.” (Journal of Discourses, 1879, vol.20, pp.158-171)
Critics of the Church use a quote from Brigham Young to demonstrate that he was unfamiliar with the First Vision: "The Lord did not come...But he did send His angel"
Brigham's full quote, including the portions removed by the critics:
The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek, the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowlege of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him.[13]
The critics ignore a quote where Brigham actually did state the that Lord "called upon" Joseph Smith at age 14
Brigham Young:
The Lord chose Joseph Smith, called upon him at fourteen years of age, gave him visions, and led him along, guided and directed him in his obscurity until he brought forth the plates and translated them, and Martin Harris was prevailed upon to sustain the printing of the Book of Mormon. All this was done in the depths of poverty, obscurity, and weakness. [14]
Critics of the Church use a quote from John Taylor as evidence that he wasn't familiar with the First Vision: "When the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right"
None of them was right, just as it was when the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right.[15]
The critics ignore this quote from John Taylor that was made the very same day in another discourse: "When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith"
When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith, he had a priesthood conferred upon him which he conferred upon others for the purpose of manifesting the laws of life... [16]
Notice how one refers to an "angel" and the other refers to "the Father and the Son." Taylor was clearly aware of the details of the First Vision. This also demonstrates how early Church leaders used the term "angel" to represent the personages that Joseph saw, even at the same time that they recognized that these personages were the Father and the Son.
Does Doctrine and Covenants 84 say that one cannot see God without holding the priesthood?
This argument is fatally flawed by an improper interpretation of D&C 84:21-22 and also by not taking into account additional texts that were produced by Joseph Smith
Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God in 1820 and also claimed that he received the priesthood in 1829. However, in a text which he produced in 1832 (D&C 84꞉21-22) it is said that a person cannot see God without holding the priesthood. Some have misinterpreted section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants in an effort to destroy the testimony of Joseph Smith with regard to the reality of the First Vision. Their effort fails when the text is seen in its proper context and then compared with other writings that were prepared by the Prophet.
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:
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."
The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness"
The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness." [17] 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 D&C 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" (D&C 67꞉11).
Moses was transfigured in order that he could see God and endure his presence
An example of this happening is seen in the Pearl of Great Price where it is recorded that 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" (Moses 1꞉2). Moses confirmed that it was because he was transfigured by the glory of God that he did not die when he saw the Lord's face while in mortality (see Moses 1꞉11). The Lord verified to Moses in yet another text that sinful mortals cannot see His face and live (see JST Exodus 33:20).
Joseph Smith recorded that he was "filled with the Spirit of God" during the First Vision
This brings us to the case of Joseph Smith in 1820. In the earliest known account of this heavenly manifestation (written in 1832 - the same year as D&C 84) the Prophet made note of the fact that when the experience began a pillar of fire rested down upon him and he was "filled with the Spirit of God." Once the heavens were opened the Savior appeared and said, "Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee." The Redeemer tied these elements together in a Book of Mormon passage where He informed a multitude of His disciples that certain persons would be "visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins (3 Nephi 12꞉2). Since the Prophet's experience followed the same pattern, it is reasonable to believe that this is what happened to him in the Sacred Grove.
There are two further pieces of evidence pointing to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was transfigured during the First Vision event. First, there is Orson Pratt's 1840 recounting of the incident wherein he relates that the pillar of fire or light "continued descending slowly, until it rested upon the earth, and [Joseph Smith] was enveloped in the midst of it. When it first came upon him, it produced a peculiar sensation throughout his whole system." [18] Joseph noticed that there was some sort of change wrought upon his body and it was of an extraordinary nature—something he was apparently not accustomed to. Second, we find a parallel between what happened to Moses after his transfiguration and that which happened to young Joseph after his theophany ended. In Moses chapter 1 we read:
9 "And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that His glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth. [10] And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man."(Moses 1꞉9-10)
In the Charles Walker account of the First Vision, it is indicated that Jesus touched Joseph's eyes in order for him to be able to see him
Diary of Charles Lowell Walker, as told by John Alger:
2nd Feb Thurs [1893] Cold and chilly. Attended Fast Meeting.... Br John Alger said while speaking of the Prophet Joseph, that when he, John, was a small boy he heard the Prophet Joseph relate his vision of seeing The Father and the Son, That God touched his eyes with his finger and said “Jospeh this is my beloved Son hear him.” As soon as the Lord had touched his eyes with his finger he immediately saw the Savior. After meeting, a few of us questioned him about the matter and he told us at the bottom of the meeting house steps that he was in the House of Father Smith in Kirtland when Joseph made this declaration, and that Joseph while speaking of it put his finger to his right eye, suiting the action with the words so as to illustrate and at the same time impress the occurence on the minds of those unto whom He was speaking. We enjoyed the conversation very much, as it was something that we had never seen in church history or heard of before.[19]
In three of the Prophet's retellings of the First Vision story he mentions that he too lost his strength and fell to the earth
- 1838 Main Text and Note B
- "When I came to myself again I found myself lying on my back looking up into heaven; When the light had departed I had no strength, but soon recover[ed] in some degree."
- 1843 David N. White Interview
- "when I came to myself, I was sprawling on my back and it was some time before my strength returned."
- 1844 Alexander Neibaur Diary
- "I endeavored to arise but felt uncom[monly] feeble."
Some early Christian authors saw things in the same way as Joseph
For example, in an early Christian document called the Clementine Homilies the apostle Peter is portrayed as agreeing:
For I maintain that the eyes of mortals cannot see the incorporeal form of the Father or Son, because it is illumined by exceeding great light. . . . For he who sees God cannot live. For the excess of light dissolves the flesh of him who sees; unless by the secret power of God the flesh be changed into the nature of light, so that it can see light.[20]
Critical sources |
|
Did God tell Joseph Smith that all of the churches of the day were an "abomination"?
Joseph did not claim that the churches of the day were "an abomination." He was told that their creeds were an abomination
One critic claims,
According to Mormon scripture, the founder of your church (Joseph Smith) was told by God in 1820 that all the churches of the day were "an abomination."
Joseph did not claim that the churches of the day were "an abomination." He was told that their creeds were an abomination. According to Joseph Smith's history, he was told the following by Jesus Christ during the First Vision:
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
Critical sources |
|
Did Joseph Smith change his stated motivation for praying in later years after he received the First Vision?
The story elements of the vision remain steady over time
The assertion that Joseph Smith's motivation for prayer changes in later accounts of the First Vision event does not pass the test of close examination. The evidence shows, rather, that the story elements remain steady over time. Joseph's motivations for praying are not, as one critic puts it "all over the place." He had two motivations: forgiveness of sins, and a desire to know which church was right.
- 1832 Account—
my intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations, led me to marvel exceedingly. For I discovered that they did not adorn their profession by a holy walk and godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository. This was a grief to my soul....
My mind become exceedingly distressed for I became convicted of my sins....He spake unto me saying, 'Joseph my son, thy sins are forgiven thee. - 1835 Account (9 Nov. 1835)—
being wrought up in my mind, respecting the subject of religion and looking at the different systems taught the children of men, I knew not who was right or who was wrong and I considered it of the first importance that I should be right....
he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee.... - 1835 Account (14 Nov. 1835)—
This account is simply a one line summary of the vision - motive not given. - 1838 Account (published in 1842)—
Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?....My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join....
many other things did He say unto me which I cannot write at this time.... - 1840 Account by Orson Pratt—
...if any one of these denominations be the Church of Christ, which one is it?...
He was informed that his sins were forgiven.
It must be kept in mind that those who report the Prophet's inaugural manifestation in writing do not always spell things out in exactly the same way; sometimes they obscure information by the language they choose to utilize and on occasion they omit story elements altogether (possibly because of audience considerations).
First Vision accounts in Church publications
The claim is sometimes made by critics that the Church hides the various accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision that are not in its official canon. The following chronological database (compiled by FAIR volunteer Edward Jones) demonstrates conclusively that this is simply not the case. The various accounts of the First Vision have been widely acknowledged in LDS-authored sources throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
Gospel Topics, located on lds.org., "First Vision Accounts"
Gospel Topics, Gospel Topics, located on lds.org.The various accounts of the First Vision tell a consistent story, though naturally they differ in emphasis and detail. Historians expect that when an individual retells an experience in multiple settings to different audiences over many years, each account will emphasize various aspects of the experience and contain unique details. Indeed, differences similar to those in the First Vision accounts exist in the multiple scriptural accounts of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus and the Apostles’ experience on the Mount of Transfiguration.3 Yet despite the differences, a basic consistency remains across all the accounts of the First Vision. Some have mistakenly argued that any variation in the retelling of the story is evidence of fabrication. To the contrary, the rich historical record enables us to learn more about this remarkable event than we could if it were less well documented.
Click here to view the complete article
Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, "LESSON 6: Joseph Smith—History 1:1–20"
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, (2013)Just as Joseph Smith emphasized different aspects of his vision in his multiple accounts, the Apostle Paul emphasized different aspects of his vision of the Savior to different audiences (see Acts 9:1–9; Acts 22:5–11; Acts 26:12–20). Why do you think Joseph Smith and Paul emphasized different things each time they related the accounts of their visions?
Click here to view the complete article
LDS-Authored Publications (1910-1968)
Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1910-1968)LDS-Authored Publications (1969-1978)
Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1969-1978)LDS-Authored Publications (1979-1983)
Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1979-1983)LDS-Authored Publications (1984-1989)
Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1984-1989)LDS-Authored Publications (1990-1997)
Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1990-1997)LDS-Authored Publications (1998-2003)
Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1998-2003)LDS-Authored Publications (2004-Present)
Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (2004-Present)
Wiki links |
|
Navigators |
Notes
- ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "First Presidency Commissions New Biography of the Prophet Joseph Smith," Newsroom.ChurchofJesusChrist.org, 15 September 2023.
- ↑ Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 29–36. ( Index of claims ); Isaiah Bennett, Inside Mormonism: What Mormons Really Believe (Catholic Answers: 1999); Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 24–25. ( Index of claims ); John Dehlin, "Why People Leave the LDS Church," (2008).; Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) Chapter 8. ( Index of claims ); Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Case Against Mormonism, 2 vols., (Salt Lake City, 1967), 1:120–128.; Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), Chapter 6.( Index of claims ); Search for the Truth DVD (2007) Resources; Tower to Truth Ministries, "50 Questions to Ask Mormons," towertotruth.net (accessed 15 November 2007). 50 Answers
- ↑ John Dehlin, "Questions and Answers," Mormon Stories Podcast (25 June 2014).
- ↑ Seema L. Clifasfi, Maryanne Garry, and Elizabeth Loftus, “Setting the Record (or Video Camera) Straight on Memory and Other Memory Myths,” in Tall Tales about the Mind and Brain: Separating Fact from Fiction, edited by Sergio Della Sala (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 61; cited in Gardner, Gift and Power, 119n1.
- ↑ Elder Richard J. Maynes, "Worldwide Young Adult Devotional," (1 May 2016).
- ↑ "First Vision Accounts," Gospel Topics on LDS.org
- ↑ "LESSON 6: Joseph Smith—History 1:1–20," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual (2013) 20.
- ↑ Milton V. Backman, "Joseph Smith's Recitals of the First Vision," Ensign (January 1985).
- ↑ James B. Allen, "Eight Contemporary Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision - What Do We Learn from Them?," Improvement Era (April 1970): 4-13.
- ↑ Dennis B. Neuenschwander, "Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ," Ensign (January 2009): 16-22.
- ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, “God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear,” Ensign (October 1984): 2.
- ↑ Stephen Prothero, American Jesus: How the Son of God Became a National Icon (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003), 171.
- ↑ (1855) Journal of Discourses 2:171.
- ↑ Brigham Young, (3 March 1861) Journal of Discourses 8:354..
- ↑ John Taylor, (2 March 1879) Journal of Discourses 20:167.
- ↑ John Taylor, (2 March 1879) Journal of Discourses 20:257.
- ↑ Stephen E. Robinson and H. Dean Garrett, A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants: Volume Three (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004), 32-33.
- ↑ Orson Pratt, An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions (Edinburgh, Scotland: Ballantyne and Hughes, 1840), 5. off-site off-site Full title GL direct link
- ↑ Karl Larson and Katharine Miles Larson, eds., Diary of Charles Lowell Walker (Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1980), 2:755–56 [recorded 2 February 1893]
- ↑ Apostle Peter (claimed), "Clementine Homilies," in 17:16 Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff (Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886)8:322–323. ANF ToC off-site This volume
Question: Who authored the Gospel of John?
The Criticism
In the 93rd section of the Doctrine and Covenants, Christ, in order to make theological points of his being and person, quotes material from the Gospel of John to Joseph Smith. Critics, in light of modern biblical scholarship, point out that the Gospel of John likely wasn’t written by John, son of Zebedee (as is commonly assumed by Latter-day Saints and conservative Chrisitians) who is understood to have be one of the original apostles of Jesus Christ.
For instance the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible writes:
Like the other Gospels, this one never names an author. Since at least the late second century CE, tradition has attributed the authorship of the Gospel to Jesus’s disciple, John the son of Zebedee, who purportedly wrote the Gospel in Ephesus. Doubts about the accuracy of this tradition have existed since antiquity. Eusebius mentions a different figure, John “the Elder,” living in Ephesus (Hist. eccl. 3.39.3). The conclusion to the Gospel (21.24) points to the memories of the “disciple whom Jesus loved” as a
source of its traditions. But the narrative never identifies this figure, although if the “other disciple” in 18.16 is a reference to this same disciple, it may suggest that he is from Jerusalem rather than Galilee. Today most scholars think that Johannine traditions stem from an unidentified follower of Jesus, not one of the twelve disciples. This anonymous disciple developed a group of followers, a “Johannine school,” who were responsible for writing down his witness. This figure was idealized in the community, as the model believer who is called the “beloved disciple” in the Gospel narrative (19.25–27).[1]
The question then becomes, if John, son of Zebedee did not write the Gospel of John, then why would Jesus quote material from the Gospel as if he did?
The revelation does not state that John wrote the Gospel. Rather, it suggests that this record is a lost revelation of the apostle John.
The revelation does not state that John wrote the Gospel. Rather, it suggests that this record is a lost revelation of the apostle John. It states that the prophet would receive a "fulness of the record of John" at the end. What is this "record of John"? Is it a part of the same record revealed to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in Doctrine and Covenants 7? Or is it part of the Gospel of John as recorded in the Holy Bible? Or is it a lost Gospel? We can't know for sure. But the revelation still echoes certain language in the Gospel of John, so how do we look at that?
1. Scholarship is wrong and John the son of Zebedee actually did write the Gospel of John.
The first approach would be to deny the current conclusions of scholarship and to assert that the Gospel of John was actually written by John, son of Zebedee as has been long assumed in Christianity in general. This seems to be the least attractive option by the author, especially since we should be open to how scholarship informs our view of the Gospel (Doctrine and Covenants 88:77-79) though this remains an option nonetheless.
2. John may have written the thoughts expressed in the Gospel which were then summarized later by the “beloved disciple”.
John, son of Zebedee, may have written the thoughts or taught the things expressed in the Gospel of John which may have been summarized by the later editor aka “the beloved disciple” of the Johannine community. Evidence of this might be found in the fact that the revelation and the Gospel of John’s wording do not match precisely. Additional evidence may be found in the high likelihood of this happening for the authoring of the Book of Revelation.
2a. John, son of Zebedee, may have used similar language found in the Gospel of John to convey ideas about Christ.
In light of the fact that the revelation does not match the language of the Gospel of John precisely, it may be pointed out that John, speaking to the Savior who used John’s language to speak to Joseph, may have used language as found in the Gospel of John to describe the Savior which the Savior transmitted to Joseph. This may have taken place in a celestial setting with John telling the words to Christ or Christ may be remembering the words spoken to him by John and then repeating them to Joseph Smith.
These options (2 and 2a) appear to be the most attractive to the author and what the author believes will be most healthy approaches for Latter-day Saints.
3. Another person named John may have written the Gospel of John.
Another person named John may have written the Gospel of John. As evidence of this, it may be pointed out that nowhere in the revelation does it state that John, son of Zebedee, wrote the Gospel. The “beloved disciple” may have been a disciple named John like the quote from The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible suggests.
4. The Savior may have been using Joseph’s understanding to teach him in parable about his nature.
It may be that Joseph had an incorrect assumption that was frozen into scripture. Perhaps the Savior used Joseph’s then understanding of the authorship of the Gospel to teach him about his nature and confirm other important things about Latter-day Saint Christology without feeling the need to correct this thing in particular.
Conclusion
In any case, we have seen that under no circumstances does this have to affect Latter-day Saint testimony in any substantial way.
Notes
- ↑ Colleen Conway, “The Gospel of John” in The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible fifth edition eds., Michael Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Pheme Perkins, and Carol Newsome (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2018), 1521
Categories:
- Navbox
- Navigation
- Book of Mormon
- Needs work
- To learn more box
- Questions
- The Changing World of Mormonism
- "Questions and Answers" on Mormon Stories
- An Insider's View of Mormon Origins
- Becoming Gods
- Difficult Questions for Mormons
- Facts Mormons Won't Tell You When They Call at Your Door
- First Vision
- John Dehlin's "Questions and Answers"
- Letter to a CES Director
- MormonThink
- No Man Knows My History
- Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves