On November 22nd a link to a Church web page (here) appeared in my Facebook news feed that dealt with the First Vision accounts. What intrigued me was that the word account was plural. This was unusual for an official church publication. I quickly read the article and was pleasantly surprised to find that it was indeed an official church publication that dealt with multiple accounts of Joseph’s first vision. The article provided summaries and links for 4 accounts of the first vision while briefly mentioning others. It also detailed several classic arguments that focused mostly on variants along with Church rebuttals. Even though I thought the Church’s responses were weak I was still pleased. I was hopeful that other problematic issues for the church would be dealt with similarly.
The following day I dedicated some time to tracking down its first appearance on the Internet. I couldn’t find the original pointer. I crowdsourced it at a Mormon Facebook group, and the best reply I got was that at differing times on the 22nd someone thinks they may have seen it on reddit. HA! So I went to the main page of the Church’s website to find the link and/or newsroom update. Nothing. After some trial and error I found it; the path looked like this- www.lds.org—> Improved Gospel Topics Study Experience —> Gospel Topics—> First Vision Accounts or select “F” in the Browse Alphabetically option (Since that time the direct link to Gospel Topics has been removed from the main page). I was growing more irritated by the minute. I couldn’t believe the church put this out there without really putting it out there. This was beginning to feel more like a page 6 retraction. I stewed thinking of this statement,
“these documents have been discussed repeatedly…”
Wrong. It may have been discussed amongst a few English speaking Euro-American academics and history buffs but it surely wasn’t discussed with non-English speaking members like Tongans (of which I am one). Making something available to a very small percentage of the church does not equal discussed repeatedly within a multilingual church. Publishing something randomly and infrequently in obscure church material or academic publications does not mean the church has aggressively taught something. Placing something in a dark corner doesn’t mean it has been brought to light.
When I’ve made these types of observations in the past someone always brings up the Internet in defense of the church crying- “Behold! Google Translate!” That’s fine I guess, but it doesn’t really make sense if you consider Google has no Tongan translation available. The Internet penetration percentage of Tonga is only 34.9% so even if there were translation options it would still only reach a small percentage of Tongans. We have the largest number of Mormons per capita of any nation in the world and the church can’t throw us a bone by publishing these oft discussed phantom references in Tongan? I looked at the entire African continent, and they fare even worse than Tongans. Samoans barely even register. Obviously, the Church’s Euro-American imperialist view of the world is still a major obstacle.
So who cares about the wonderful article if no one knows it exists and couldn’t read it even if they did!?
Sadly, what I’ve learned from this little incident is that the church, despite what appears to be their best effort, is still failing miserably when it comes to presenting responsible history. Partial measures avail us nothing. Until the brethren quit half-stepping and take the plunge we are a church in danger of…a great many things.
Which brings me to my final point. I understand that the Church is not in the history business; it is in the business of spreading the gospel, however, as long as it uses its own history in the presentation of the gospel it has the responsibility to do so with integrity and honesty.
EXACTLY !!! I’m trying to figure out how any member would even know this has been released and how to find it. I would love to have a discussion with my family….but they have no idea this has been done. How is that being more transparent? For those who already have questions or who are on the “liberal” side….they are aware and have been watching for this….for the average member they have no idea.
Kinda sorta seems like the church site for gays. Hardly anybody even knows about it. The church is not dumb and they know exactly how to release information and get it out to members….they do this quickly with political/church issues that they are concerned about. If they really wanted members to know about this they could get the words out. hmmm
Malo Viilami, great post! This is intended to give the church “plausible denial” when accused that they have hid this information from the church. The information is out there now, but its ok if nobody notices it. Ever.
An analogous situation, in my mind, is the website Mormonsandgays.org, which was published late last year with little fanfare. The website made many key concessions about “same sex attraction” that left progressive Mormons all atwitter. But even today, one year later, most members of the church (have no idea it even exists!! There was no letter or announcement in the church meetings of this historic shift in church policy, no statement urging members to love their gay children. And I’m pretty sure the website is only available for English-speakers – which is now a minority of church members. So what is the impact of this on the very people who needed to know about it the most? Zero.
To me, the reasons is obvious; the new website on gays and the new admission of multiple versions of the first vision are NOT intended for the majority of church members. If they were, the information would be quickly integrated into lesson manuals and announced over the pulpit. This church has no problem getting information out when it wants to, but here they don’t want to.
Oops, it looks like Alison and I are on the same wavelength. 😉
Why would the Church leadership want to discuss this openly? I have not doubt that many members would be fine soaking up the view the Church would like them to take on the divergent accounts, but what kind of rabbit hole does this open up for people who are going to honestly look at the accounts? For the Church this issue has to feel very much like handing a loaded gun to a bunch of Sunbeams – it’s simply better to stash this stuff away. To those who learn about the varying accounts it feels more like a conspiracy.
Plausible deniability is the perfect assessment. Exactly.
Excellent article. And I like the ‘plausible deniability’ idea. That’s exactly what it feels like.
One other thing to note about mormonsandgays.org – it is the only official Church web site that does not have a link from the main page. All the others do (Family Search, Mormon.org, Newsroom, etc.) The only way to find it is to go to Teachings, Gospel Topics, and then dig through the Gospel Topics to find it under ‘Same-Sex Attraction’. There is no listing or cross-reference for the word ‘gay’.
I asked my son who is preparing for a mission, and is fully aware of the several First Vision accounts, if he thinks teaching as suggested in Preach My Gospel would be honest with his fellow men. He replied, “No”.
I find that these kind of things, while not being great in terms of getting the message out broadly, at least give us more liberal thinkers some recourse when discussing these kind of issues with the more true-believing types who might accuse us of getting into anti-mormon material. I know the new introduction to Official Declaration 2 is another example, if we can demonstrate the church’s own publications acknowledging our concerns, it makes them a whole lot more valid to the average TBM.
Hey try this link – It’s not obvious if you google in but I found it this way.
http://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng
I’m amused with all the conspiracy theories. If one is interest in the first vision account, most people would type “first vision” into the search box on the lds.org home page and be taken directly to the article.
For anyone who has had a significant and deeply personal spiritual experience, the details you give out depend on the audience you’re addressing. I’ve made precisely the same decisions as to what details to include and what not to include (and who to even bring up the subject with when prompted). I’ve still never told the entire story of any of those deeply significant experiences to anyone.
I’ve been listening to a lot of LDS podcasts, recently–meaning ones published by the LDS church. I’m finding that a lot of faithful LDS scholars are getting interviewed, and that things like the first vision accounts and other problem issues are coming up all over the place, but never as the focus. They seem to be targeting a very general, English speaking audience, but they are managing to get it out there despite our correlation culture of watered down, storybook messages.
For what it’s worth, I don’t see plausible deniability as being an issue. I haven’t seen evidence that church leaders regularly engage in that game. What I see is a generation of leaders who really don’t fully comprehend the speed at which things happen in the information age. They are making a good attempt to come up to speed, but we’re going to either have to wait several years to see some of these changes come to fruition, or we will have to make them happen ourselves. I plan on doing both.
I first heard of the differing accounts in college at Utah State in institute. This particular concern that others find so crippling has not been as big an issue for me, perhaps because of where I learned about it. I take issue that it necessarily means the first vision did not happen. I know too much about how human memory and learning work. However, that really ends up being beside the point. Doubtless we would be better off addressing things like this in Seminary or perhaps a more advanced Gospel doctrine class.
BTW, I am talking institute 20 years ago.
I’m with John on this. When you type “first vision” into lds.org, this document along with one on the Joseph Smith Papers comes up. Nothing really cryptic or weird about that.
When the same search is done in Spanish or Portuguese (the only other languages I can read), you get a similar page, although shorter and less detailed.
I do agree that dispensing the same information to all other languages is important, but I think that would be a huge undertaking and will require some time.
The multiple first vision accounts is a big issue for me. There is a gradual progression from the first account to the one taught today but the contrast between the first and the official account is significant.
The issue is that this experience is presented as the bedrock of the restoration, the basis of our understanding of the godhead, and the heart of the church’s truth claims. I accept that we may emphasise different aspects when we’re relating an experience to different audiences, but the suggestion that the first account implies two personages, both called “the Lord”, is a bit of a stretch.
The distinction of it being one or two personages would seem to be fairly central to the whole experience. The official account makes it very clear there were two, while the first account (viewed in isolation) make it very clear there was one.
Like I said, big issue – for me at least.
I checked out the French page. Nothing but the official account.
We can all concede that the church uses history to aid in the teaching of the gospel. It is my opinion that the history used in connection with teaching the gospel should be as well rounded and comprehensive as possible. We all know that hasn’t been case. I think this all started with Brigham. FWIW, I can’t blame Brigham for tightly controling our history. (What he did with LMS History of Joseph was almost comical) I love Brigham for protecting and sculpting his friend and Prophet’s historical legacy. He was a fiercely loyal man in whom I have great respect. (I also think he was a jerk with blood on his hands.I also think there wasn’t a man alive save Brigham that could have held the Saints together.)
At some point this institutional paranoia should have been recognized for what it was and jettisoned. It wasn’t; but we must do so now. The fear of apostasy and reduced new baptisms is unfounded in my opinion. Exist narratives rarely point to history as their reason for leaving.
The only solution, IMO, is to completely re-work corellated material to reflect a more responsible honest approach to our history. Retool the discussion and then let the chips fall where they may. These church manuals all get translated and sent to members in their own language. At minimum they could be discussed and taught to members/prospective members by missionaries.
Each time I think of this issue I quietly hum this song,
“Do what is right; the day-dawn is breaking,
Hailing a future of freedom and light.
Angels above us are silent notes taking
Of ev’ry action; then do what is right!
Do what is right; let the consequence follow.
Battle for freedom in spirit and might;
And with stout hearts look ye forth till tomorrow.
God will protect you; then do what is right!
I think it’s about that time to take the plunge.
“these documents have been discussed repeatedly…”
Ebedded in this statement is the plausible deniability. IMO.
Let’s put the First Vision to rest and type in Aaronic Priesthood to Gospel Topics. On that page it quotes Joseph Smith History and states that John the Baptist gave Joseph and Oliver the priesthood in ’29.
What they fail to mention is that John the Baptist wasn’t mentioned by name until ’35. Same with Peter James and John. The evolution of the priesthood is much different than how the church presents it. Not just regarding power (power to do stuff?) but offices and authority. The church wants to say “Here are two definite points in time when the priesthood was restored.” When documents are read from earliest date to latest date the picture is much different. I’ve got these dates as major priesthood events 1829, 1831, 1836, 42-44.
How much should the church include to be considered more responsible and comprehensive? More than it does now. This is where revelation would come in handy.
Viliami, I’m not sure how long it’s been, but the Ensign/liahona had an talk/article on the multiple accounts some time ago, I want to say some where between the 1970’s-1990’s but I’d have to look it up, as well as a church news article on it when I was a missionary back in 2006 or 2007. It explored and compared 10 accounts if I’m correct. The ensign I know is getting more and more diverse in other languages, but I know that it’s a topic that isn’t brought up a whole lot, but imo, the multiple accounts still doesn’t change my testimony given to me by the power of the Holy Ghost. Lol in fact the most recent restoration video shared by the missionaries in the narration parts has some quotes by the account, if I recall correctly, given in the wentworth letter that also contained the articles of faith.
I desided to try to find the ensign article:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=33e605481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____
http://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng
http://josephsmithpapers.org/site/accounts-of-the-first-vision
http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/50623/A-genuine-vision.html
Lol the church growth is faster than the the demand and accessibility of all the material it has. The Book of Mormon and D&C and PoGP still aren’t translated fully in every language. It’s a slow process, but one has to remember that the growth is tremendous and much of the work is volunteer based so one must be patient. I’d probably feel the same, but I also understand that your desires for more knowledge in your language is to be kept with the time table of The Lord. There r still ppl waiting for the full standard works , let alone other revelations and wonderful talks and manuals etc
It took hundreds of yrs before even the “bible” was available in multiple languages and accessible to non clergy. A lack of the printing press and movable type, the apostasy and other factors that led to so much darkness was a fact that the people of those times had to endure and likewise we endure in similar ways. We don’t have all that was even in the gold plates. There is still the sealed part not translated. The desire for more knowledge is wonderful, but remember we learn line up line, precept upon precept. I empathize with your hunger/thirst for that knowledge, but if your desire is sincere and genuine, then have the faith to pray and ask. The scriptures continually exort us to ask. Then wait patiently upon The Lord in his time table. Heck he may reveal more to u then what had been revealed in even English with the strict charge to properly keep sacred that revelation like how nephi, the brother of Jared, or countless others who have had such revelations.
Hi Steven.
You said- “the multiple accounts still doesn’t change my testimony given to me by the power of the Holy Ghost”
I’m very glad you’ve been able to maintain your testimony. 🙂
“It took hundreds of yrs before even the “bible” was available in multiple languages and accessible to non clergy.”
True. How about we just settle on making an honest robust history part of our oral traditions? That sounds nice to me.