Events after the First Vision - Revision history

SpencerMarsh at 21:49, 21 January 2026

2026-01-21T21:49:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:49, 21 January 2026
Line 1,333:		Line 1,333:
	\|summary1=		\|summary1=
	}}		}}



	{{Endnotes sources}}		{{Endnotes sources}}

SpencerMarsh at 21:31, 21 January 2026

2026-01-21T21:31:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 21 January 2026
Line 205:		Line 205:

	{{InterpreterBar		{{InterpreterBar
	\|link=~~http~~://~~www~~.~~mormoninterpreter.com~~/the-cowdery-conundrum-olivers-aborted-attempt-to-describe-joseph-smiths-first-vision-in-1834-and-1835/		\|link=https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/the-cowdery-conundrum-olivers-aborted-attempt-to-describe-joseph-smiths-first-vision-in-1834-and-1835
	\|author=Roger Nicholson		\|author=Roger Nicholson
	\|authorlink=~~http~~://~~www~~.~~mormoninterpreter.com~~/author/rogern/		\|authorlink=https://interpreterfoundation.org/all/author/rogern
	\|title=The Cowdery Conundrum: Oliver’s Aborted Attempt to Describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision in 1834 and 1835		\|title=The Cowdery Conundrum: Oliver’s Aborted Attempt to Describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision in 1834 and 1835
	\|vol=8		\|vol=8

GregSmith: /* Since Andrew held no position of authority in the LDS Church when he made his "angel" comments, they cannot be looked upon as having any kind of evidentiary value in regard to what Church leaders believed at the time */

2024-06-01T22:58:26Z

Since Andrew held no position of authority in the LDS Church when he made his "angel" comments, they cannot be looked upon as having any kind of evidentiary value in regard to what Church leaders believed at the time

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:58, 1 June 2024
Line 1,327:		Line 1,327:
	Church critics neglect to tell their readership that Andrew Jenson is plainly listed as the editor and the publisher of both the initial 1888 text and the revision which they allege was printed in 1890. Furthermore, they fail to make note of the fact that when volumes 5-8 of ''The Historical Record'' were advertised for sale in a Utah newspaper in 1889 it was noted that this was a "work which Brother Jenson offers" to the public. <ref>''Deseret Weekly'', vol. 39, no. 15, 5 October 1889, 460</ref> There is, therefore, no justification whatever in claiming that the LDS Church was somehow responsible for the content of Andrew Jenson's original 1888 article or the revised text that was issued later.		Church critics neglect to tell their readership that Andrew Jenson is plainly listed as the editor and the publisher of both the initial 1888 text and the revision which they allege was printed in 1890. Furthermore, they fail to make note of the fact that when volumes 5-8 of ''The Historical Record'' were advertised for sale in a Utah newspaper in 1889 it was noted that this was a "work which Brother Jenson offers" to the public. <ref>''Deseret Weekly'', vol. 39, no. 15, 5 October 1889, 460</ref> There is, therefore, no justification whatever in claiming that the LDS Church was somehow responsible for the content of Andrew Jenson's original 1888 article or the revised text that was issued later.

	{{~~SeeAlso~~\|Events after the First Vision#Is there anything wrong with early Church leaders using the term "angel" to refer to Jesus Christ?\|l1=Is there anything wrong with referring to Jesus as 'an angel'?}}		{{Related articles
			\|title=seealso
			\|link1=Events after the First Vision#Is there anything wrong with early Church leaders using the term "angel" to refer to Jesus Christ?
			\|subject1=Is there anything wrong with referring to Jesus as 'an angel'?
			\|summary1=
			}}

GregSmith: /* It cannot be denied that Brigham Young was aware of the official version of the First Vision as published by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois */

2024-06-01T22:58:08Z

It cannot be denied that Brigham Young was aware of the official version of the First Vision as published by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:58, 1 June 2024
Line 931:		Line 931:
	It has been claimed that "Brigham Young never once mentioned the First Vision of God the Father and his Son in his 30 years of preaching as President of the Church." Note that the ''same critics'' also ''claim that Brigham Young taught only that an angel came: a strange claim to make while insisting that Brigham never spoke of the First Vision at all.''		It has been claimed that "Brigham Young never once mentioned the First Vision of God the Father and his Son in his 30 years of preaching as President of the Church." Note that the ''same critics'' also ''claim that Brigham Young taught only that an angel came: a strange claim to make while insisting that Brigham never spoke of the First Vision at all.''

	{{~~SeeAlso~~\|Events after the First Vision#What did Brigham Young say that leads one to believe that he denied the First Vision?\|l1=Note that the same critics also claim that Brigham Young denied God or Christ appeared in the First Vision}}		{{Related articles
			\|title=seealso
			\|link1=Events after the First Vision#What did Brigham Young say that leads one to believe that he denied the First Vision?
			\|subject1=Note that the same critics also claim that Brigham Young denied God or Christ appeared in the First Vision
			\|summary1=
			}}

	It cannot be denied that Brigham Young was aware of the official version of the First Vision as published by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois. And it is almost beyond comprehension to believe that President Young was not aware of numerous First Vision story recitals (both in print and over the pulpit) by high Church authorities such as Orson Pratt, Lorenzo Snow, John E. Page, George Q. Cannon, Orson Hyde, John Taylor, Franklin D. Richards, and George A. Smith.		It cannot be denied that Brigham Young was aware of the official version of the First Vision as published by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois. And it is almost beyond comprehension to believe that President Young was not aware of numerous First Vision story recitals (both in print and over the pulpit) by high Church authorities such as Orson Pratt, Lorenzo Snow, John E. Page, George Q. Cannon, Orson Hyde, John Taylor, Franklin D. Richards, and George A. Smith.

GregSmith: /* Brigham stated that "The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven..." */

2024-06-01T22:57:49Z

Brigham stated that "The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven..."

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:57, 1 June 2024
Line 861:		Line 861:
	It is claimed that President Brigham Young taught in an 1855 sermon that the Lord did not appear to Joseph Smith and forbid him from joining any of the religious denominations of his day, and that it was an "angel" who delivered this message instead. <ref>{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World\|pages=164}}; Christian Research and Counsel, "Documented History of Joseph Smith’s First Vision," full-color pamphlet, 10 pages. [There is a notation within this pamphlet indicating that research and portions of text were garnered from Utah Lighthouse Ministry]; {{CriticalWork:Watchman Fellowship:Articles\|pages=3}}</ref>		It is claimed that President Brigham Young taught in an 1855 sermon that the Lord did not appear to Joseph Smith and forbid him from joining any of the religious denominations of his day, and that it was an "angel" who delivered this message instead. <ref>{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World\|pages=164}}; Christian Research and Counsel, "Documented History of Joseph Smith’s First Vision," full-color pamphlet, 10 pages. [There is a notation within this pamphlet indicating that research and portions of text were garnered from Utah Lighthouse Ministry]; {{CriticalWork:Watchman Fellowship:Articles\|pages=3}}</ref>

	{{~~SeeAlso~~\|Events after the First Vision#Did Brigham Young confirm or expound on Joseph Smith’s first vision?\|l1=Note that the same critics also claim that Brigham Young never spoke about the First Vision at all}}		{{Related articles
			\|title=seealso
			\|link1=Events after the First Vision#Did Brigham Young confirm or expound on Joseph Smith’s first vision?
			\|subject1=Note that the same critics also claim that Brigham Young never spoke about the First Vision at all
			\|summary1=
			}}

	An edited version of the 1855 sermon text—as it is presented by Church critics—reads as follows:		An edited version of the 1855 sermon text—as it is presented by Church critics—reads as follows:

GregSmith: /* Could Joseph just withdraw as a full member? */

2024-06-01T22:57:37Z

Could Joseph just withdraw as a full member?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:57, 1 June 2024
Line 844:		Line 844:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	{{~~SeeAlso~~\|Events_leading_to_the_First_Vision#When_did_Joseph_Smith_become_.22partial_to_the_Methodist_sect.3F.22\|l1=When did Joseph Smith become 'partial to the Methodist sect'?\|Events_leading_to_the_First_Vision#When_was_Lucy_Mack_Smith_baptized_as_a_Presbyterian.3F\|l2=When was Lucy Mack Smith baptized as a Presbyterian?}}		{{Related articles
			\|title=seealso
			\|link1=Events_leading_to_the_First_Vision#When_did_Joseph_Smith_become_.22partial_to_the_Methodist_sect.3F.22
			\|subject1=When did Joseph Smith become 'partial to the Methodist sect'?
			\|link2=Events_leading_to_the_First_Vision#When_was_Lucy_Mack_Smith_baptized_as_a_Presbyterian.3F
			\|subject2=When was Lucy Mack Smith baptized as a Presbyterian?
			\|summary1=
			\|summary2=
			}}

	{{Critical sources box:Joseph Smith's First Vision/Did Joseph Smith join other churches/Methodist membership procedures/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}		{{Critical sources box:Joseph Smith's First Vision/Did Joseph Smith join other churches/Methodist membership procedures/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}

GregSmith: /* The persecution aspect of the 1838 account is rarely mentioned in subsequent accounts */

2024-06-01T22:57:20Z

The persecution aspect of the 1838 account is rarely mentioned in subsequent accounts

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:57, 1 June 2024
Line 703:		Line 703:
	This last example is especially significant because it is an obvious reference to the Methodist minister who is spoken of in the 1838 ''History of the Church'' account. The 1844 rehearsal of events is less detailed but it is, nevertheless, the same exact story. The 1844 document clearly demonstrates that Joseph Smith did not always include an equal amount of story elements in his recitals of the First Vision. Critics of this manifestation should, therefore, not expect any such thing when they scrutinize the pertinent documents. If an element of the story was not known by one particular audience it cannot be automatically assumed that it was not known by another.		This last example is especially significant because it is an obvious reference to the Methodist minister who is spoken of in the 1838 ''History of the Church'' account. The 1844 rehearsal of events is less detailed but it is, nevertheless, the same exact story. The 1844 document clearly demonstrates that Joseph Smith did not always include an equal amount of story elements in his recitals of the First Vision. Critics of this manifestation should, therefore, not expect any such thing when they scrutinize the pertinent documents. If an element of the story was not known by one particular audience it cannot be automatically assumed that it was not known by another.

	{{~~SeeAlso~~\|Differences in First Vision accounts#Persecution afterwards—"I could find none that would believe"\|l1=Did Joseph Smith not talk about persecution in his 1832 account?}}		{{Related articles
			\|title=seealso
			\|link1=Differences in First Vision accounts#Persecution afterwards—"I could find none that would believe"
			\|subject1=Did Joseph Smith not talk about persecution in his 1832 account?
			\|summary1=
			}}

	{{To learn more box:First Vision: no such thing as visions}}{{blankline}}		{{To learn more box:First Vision: no such thing as visions}}{{blankline}}
	{{Critical sources box:Joseph Smith's First Vision/Persecution after the vision/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}		{{Critical sources box:Joseph Smith's First Vision/Persecution after the vision/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}



	=Did Joseph Smith become a member of Emma Hale Smith's Methodist congregation in 1828, eight years after the First Vision?=		=Did Joseph Smith become a member of Emma Hale Smith's Methodist congregation in 1828, eight years after the First Vision?=

GregSmith: /* Evidence that is absent */

2024-06-01T22:55:40Z

Evidence that is absent

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:55, 1 June 2024
Line 138:		Line 138:
	\|link3=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"the Son of"		\|link3=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"the Son of"
	\|summary1=		\|summary1=
	\|subject1=~~Question:~~ Why did Joseph Smith change the wording in Mormon 7:7 from "is one God" to "are one God"?		\|subject1=Why did Joseph Smith change the wording in Mormon 7:7 from "is one God" to "are one God"?
	\|summary2=		\|summary2=
	\|subject2=Mormonism and the nature of God/God is a Spirit/Lecture of Faith 5 teaches the Father is "a personage of spirit"		\|subject2=Mormonism and the nature of God/God is a Spirit/Lecture of Faith 5 teaches the Father is "a personage of spirit"

GregSmith: /* Evidence that is absent */

2024-06-01T22:55:15Z

Evidence that is absent

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:55, 1 June 2024
Line 132:		Line 132:
	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>{{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.</ref>		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>{{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.</ref>

	{{~~SeeAlso~~\|Why did Joseph Smith change the wording in Mormon 7:7 from "is one God" to "are one God"?\|Mormonism and the nature of God/God is a Spirit/Lecture of Faith 5 teaches the Father is "a personage of spirit"\|Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"the Son of"}}		{{Related articles
			\|title=seealso
			\|link1=Question: Why did Joseph Smith change the wording in Mormon 7:7 from "is one God" to "are one God"?
			\|link2=Mormonism and the nature of God/God is a Spirit/Lecture of Faith 5 teaches the Father is "a personage of spirit"
			\|link3=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"the Son of"
			\|summary1=
			\|subject1=Question: Why did Joseph Smith change the wording in Mormon 7:7 from "is one God" to "are one God"?
			\|summary2=
			\|subject2=Mormonism and the nature of God/God is a Spirit/Lecture of Faith 5 teaches the Father is "a personage of spirit"
			\|summary3=
			\|subject3=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"the Son of"
			}}

	{{Critical sources box:Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith's early conception of God/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}		{{Critical sources box:Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith's early conception of God/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}

GregSmith at 23:54, 17 May 2024

2024-05-17T23:54:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:54, 17 May 2024
Line 1,392:		Line 1,392:
	[[pt:Pergunta: Será que Brigham Young confirmar ou expor sobre a primeira visão de Joseph Smith?]]		[[pt:Pergunta: Será que Brigham Young confirmar ou expor sobre a primeira visão de Joseph Smith?]]
	[[pt:Pergunta: Será que Joseph Smith perder o controle da Igreja durante a apostasia de Kirtland 1838?]]		[[pt:Pergunta: Será que Joseph Smith perder o controle da Igreja durante a apostasia de Kirtland 1838?]]
	[[pt:Pergunta: Será que Joseph Smith rever seu relato da Primeira Visão em 1838 para responder a uma crise de liderança?]		[[pt:Pergunta: Será que Joseph Smith rever seu relato da Primeira Visão em 1838 para responder a uma crise de liderança?]]
	[[pt:Pergunta: Será que Joseph iniciou sua carreira profética com uma idéia "trinitária" de Deus?]]		[[pt:Pergunta: Será que Joseph iniciou sua carreira profética com uma idéia "trinitária" de Deus?]]
	[[pt:Pergunta: Será que o relato de Joseph Smith da Primeira Visão crescer mais detalhada e mais colorido depois que ele gravou pela primeira vez que em 1832?]]		[[pt:Pergunta: Será que o relato de Joseph Smith da Primeira Visão crescer mais detalhada e mais colorido depois que ele gravou pela primeira vez que em 1832?]]
	[[pt:Pergunta: documentos contemporâneos lançar qualquer luz sobre a possível perseguição da família Smith depois de Joseph Smith da Primeira Visão?]]		[[pt:Pergunta: documentos contemporâneos lançar qualquer luz sobre a possível perseguição da família Smith depois de Joseph Smith da Primeira Visão?]]