As we’ve announced a couple of times over the past few months, Serenity Valley and I are launching a podcast on Mormon history today. Our podcast, called the Evening and the Morning Star, is intended as an exploration of Mormon history. The word “exploration” is chosen carefully, because neither of us is a professional Mormon historian. Rather, we are people who have read a fair bit of Mormon history and are in the process of reading more. Our show will share what we’ve picked up, but we offer no guarantee of infallibility. Please post any corrections in the comments thread for this post, so that we and others can learn from our mistakes!
Without any further ado, here’s the first episode.
Let me also offer a few references related to topics mentioned in the podcast. You can find the complete text of all 24 issues of the original Evening and the Morning Star here. The account of the destruction of the press from the point of view of the Missouri mob is quoted from a newspaper article as reported in B. H. Roberts’ edition of Joseph Smith’s documentary history of the church, vol. 1, pgs. 395-99. The various accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision can all be found in one convenient volume, with a variety of other interesting early primary sources, here. The letter from William E. McLellin to his family is on pages 79 to 85 of Jan Shipps and John W. Welch’s edition of the Journals of William E. McLellin, 1831-1836. The book on Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young mentioned in the podcast is 4 Zinas by Martha Sonntag Bradley and Mary Brown Firmage Woodward.
Three of the best things to read about the First Vision controversy are James B. Allen, “The Significance of Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’ in Mormon Thought,” Dialogue, Vol. 1, Autumn 1966, pp. 29-45 and “Emergence of a Fundamental: The Expanding Role of Joseph Smith’s First Vision in Mormon Religious Thought,” Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 7, 1980, pp. 43-61; as well as Marvin S. Hill, “The First Vision: A Critique and Reconciliation,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 (Summer 1982): 31-46. A helpful summary of Mormon apologetics on the First Vision can be found here. One of many critical discussions of the controversy can be found here.
Thanks for listening, and we hope you enjoy the show!
Congratulations! I just downloaded it and look forward to listening to it. I wish you the best!
Very cool. I’ve downloaded the first episode and plan to listen to it tonight. One quick question: Have you listed (or are you planning to list) this podcast in the iTunes podcast directory? I searched for it a few minutes ago, but it didn’t show up. If nothing else, registering with iTunes might help increase your audience.
Square Peg.
That’s a good idea. We’ll do it. Thanks!
I am going to pull the podcast and listen to it. Congrats!
I would also suggest that Kathleen Flake’s discussion of the First Vision in her Reed Smoot book is really excellent. She links up the political context of the Reed Smoot hearings to Joseph F. Smith’s and the modern Church’s emphasis in some really cool ways…
RT, the podcast is first rate. Congratulations to you and SV; may you do many more!
If you have the time, would be go kind as to drop me an e-mail? There’s something I’d like to ask you about, and I can’t find a direct e-mail to you or your blog.
Congratulations.
I found it on iTunes. I searched the directory with the keyword ‘Mormon’ and one of the podcasts was yours.
I previously failed to get results searching for particular podcasts. “Mormon” does the trick though.
RT and Serenity,
Nice job.
One question: you say that the many-versioned First Vision story need not be injurious to faith, and indeed it would seem that for yours it hasn’t been. But how would you answer a critic who says that whilst one may forget or recast the details of what one had for breakfast 15 years ago, a grand and direct visitation from God and Jesus is not something you would get “wrong”?
Ronan, thanks for the question. There are obviously several possible answers here. One, which we mentioned during the show, is the classic apologetic tactic of emphasizing that the early narratives don’t contradict the later narratives; they just don’t include the entire story. I find this essentially unsatisfactory. The first full version, in 1832, was part of a draft history of the church. It’s a lengthy narrative fragment and seems, in context, to be intended as a full recounting of the experience. Nonetheless, there is no strong disconfirmation of the apologetic perspective.
A second approach, which I find more reasonable, is to suggest that visionary and revelatory experiences may be different in kind than more mundane experiences like eating breakfast, witnessing a crime, or meeting the President of the United States. Perhaps the more metaphysical, visionary experiences are such that the full nature and meaning of the event unfolds over time as the individual’s theological understanding develops.
Finally, a third approach that I find basically acceptable, but that would probably be more troublesome for some within the church, is that Joseph Smith may have felt divinely authorized to reshape his personal conversion experience for use as a tool in converting others to the divine message with which he subsequently felt he’d been entrusted.
I have no firm commitments with respect to these latter two approaches. However, it does seem clear to me that Joseph Smith had a personal conversion experience, outside the context of organized evangelical religion, before he began the Book of Mormon project. His testimony on that point is pretty consistent starting from his earliest public statements, and he did repeatedly describe the experience along the basic lines of the First Vision formula.
Nate, thanks for the recommendation. I’ve been looking forward to having the time to read Flake’s book, and I’ll now bump it further up the list!
[…] As the article notes, on July 20, 1833, a mob consisting of more than 50 state residents, including several early leaders in Independence, attacked and the destroyed the Evening and the Morning Star press and printing house (owned by W.W. Phelps), tore up the Mormon store, and assaulted several Mormons, including Bishop Edward Partridge and Charles Allen, who were tarred and feathered (historical background on this incident is discussed in a new Latter-day Saint Liberation Front podcast available here). Phelps and Patridge filed lawsuits against those allegedly responsible for the attacks. Partridge’s suit claimed $50,000 in damages, while Phelps claimed $55,000 in damages (Edwin Firmage and Richard Mangum, Zion in the Courts: A Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900 (Urbana, IL: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1988, pp. 64, 68-69)). […]
Thanks, RT.
James Allen is, indeed, very much alive. His review of Grant Palmer’s book appeared in BYU Studies and FARMS Review in the last year or so.
Justin, yes, indeed. I now recall that James Allen is also one of the authors of the recent and incredibly useful overview of Mormon studies research, Mormon History, available online here.
Fantastic, RT and SV. I actually cut the volume on the PS2 to listen to it. Not only that, I won 44-7, so I can only assume that you’re a good luck charm. That was just a fantastic introduction to the First Vision accounts and taught me a ton that I did not know.
D-Train, thanks. I’m glad you liked it!
I should add that I also enjoyed the podcast. Nice radio voices, too.
Thanks, Justin! High praise indeed!
Oh yeah, the one criticism that I forgot:
Maybe it’s just something with my system, but I occasionally found Serenity difficult to hear. If you can turn the volume on her microphone up just a touch for the next episode, that might be good. If it’s just a problem on my end, don’t worry about it.
Thanks for the feedback, D-Train. We’re working on the technical setup with guidance from John Dehlin, and I hope we’ll be able to produce a better sound quality next time.
Just listened. Great podcast! How do you manage to sound so smart and comfortable while staying so focussed on your topic? I look forward to more.
I believe the 1832 account matches details from 4 later accounts: the 1835 and 1838 accounts, and the 1844 account as well as a much later Utha account. Two beings, coming at separate times and not simultaneously as is normally depicted:
“I was filled with the Spirit of God [the Holy Ghost], and the Lord [God the Father] opened the heavens upon me, and I saw the Lord [Jesus Christ] and he spake unto me….”
All three members of the Godhead are mentioned in the 1832 account (in my estimation). Whether he did not understand the nature of the Godhead immediately upon receiving this vision is speculative, though I believe he did not. But by 1832 the account has the Spirit - a being of spirit who fills him, the “Lord” who opens the heavens to his view, and the “Lord” who then appears, comes to stand beside the first being, and who then delivers the bulk of the message.
I would give more details, but I am not the orginiator of this view and am holding off because of an upcoming book in which the historical evidence will be more thoroughly presented.
Me, I think you’re overinterpreting on this. The sentence you quote uses the name “the Lord” twice with no differentiation. In the first statement, “the Lord” opens the heavens, initiating the vision. In the second statement, “the Lord” appears as part of the vision. The text doesn’t in any way state that the act of opening the heavens involved an appearance, and it doesn’t do anything to differentiate between the first “Lord” and the second “Lord.”
Hence, this interpretation seems to rely much more heavily on theory than on the textual evidence. I’m uncomfortable stretching that far from the words Joseph actually chose to describe his experience. While I agree that such an interpretation is not absolutely ruled out by the text, it doesn’t seem the most reasonable reading.
The scriptural context is Psalm 110:
“THE LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.”
This passage is quoted by Christ in Mark 12:36 where the exact same formulation is used (i.e., the Holy Ghost and two “Lords” being mentioned together and in that order):
“For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord….”
Joseph’s use of scriptural phraseology, formulations, tems and patterns is well attested even in his early writings.
McConkie’s first sentece on the title “Lord” - NOT written, mind you, as a means of supporting my friend’s (and my) interpretation as it was not known then - is:
“Both the Father and the Son, as omnipotent and exalted personages, are commonly known by the name-title Lord.”
The real question one should ask is whether there is evidence in other accounts that would support a either a single identification of the two uses of the word “Lord” or whether two identifications could have been intended. As i stated, there are 4 such accounts, one stating the method by which the Father opened the heavens for Joseph to see the Savior.
I know it is a theory (as are all the other explanations), but considering all the textual evidence, I think is certainly worth considering.
Me, it seems to me that your theory works IF you presume in advance that the various accounts are intended to be identical, so that words can be taken as having different meanings in sequential usages within the same sentence, AND that the author of the Psalms (!) uses language the same way as Joseph Smith. Neither of those assumptions is probable, although both are certainly possible.
I don’t assume the author of the Psalms used language the same way as Joseph, but the other way around might not be as improbable as you suppose. Neither do I assume that each of the accounts was intended to be identical, though I do assume they describe a single event and that no details were invented. I also allow for errors in memory, either intentional or unintentioned omissions, different emphases for different audiences, and changig understanding of the event over time by Joseph himself.
I understand your reticence, though. I have known my friend for years; he is a well-respected historian and author and makes connections in sources that others miss (that’s what others noted in him that gave him so many of the unique opportunities he’s had in Mormon studies). I have weighed his arguements, read the relevant sources, and agree that his conclusion is not unreasonable and even likely. However, even if Joseph’s 1832 account really only mentions one Lord, I have no problem with it.
On a related note, there are two sources - one contemporary and one late - that have not been mentioned to this point; they are not central to my friend’s theory, but I give them here for the broader discussion of the First Vision evidence:
1. From a report on the preaching of LDS missionaries in New York, published in the Palmyra Reflector, 14 February 1831:
“Mormon missionaries proclaimed that there had been no religion in the world for 1500 years,…that Joseph Smith had now received a commission from God for that purpose…. Smith (they affirmed) had seen God frequently and personally….”
2. Typescript of interview with “Mrs. Palmer,” in Truman G. Madsen, “Guest Editor’s Prologue,” BYU Studies, 9:3:235 (Spring 1969):
Me, note that the “Mrs. Palmer” interview could easily be about the Moroni visions. The first Moroni vision didn’t lead Joseph to write a book — that idea didn’t come up publicly until later on. Hence, the first vision here could easily be Moroni I, which led Joseph to Cumorah and the plates for the first time. The second vision could be the time, three years later, when Joseph recovered the plates — a vision that directly led to the production of a book. This interpretation is more consistent with family and conversion memoirs from the late 1820s and 1830s, which typically revolve around the Moroni vision as Joseph’s prophetic calling and then discuss the process of production of the Book of Mormon — with no mention whatsoever of a vision of God the Father and/or the Son.
At any rate, the interview only connects with what we now call the “first vision” if we make the anachronistic assumption that people in the 19th century would have reserved the label “first vision” for the event we now describe in those terms.
That’s certainly a valid arguement - the “interview could [indeed] easily be about the Moroni visits.” Could. Likewise, the “First Vision,” being his first vision, cannot entirely be ruled out as the “first vision” of Mrs. Palmer’s description. Her’s is a late account; no date is given, but is clearly many years after the events. It would not be anachronistic for her then - or even for anyone who may have had knowledge of the First Vision in the immediate years following the Moroni visits - to refer to the 1820 vision as his “first vision” (lower case - not a proper noun, but a description of the order in which the visions occured).
Nonetheless, even many years later in interviews by RLDS apostles and hostile folks, none of Joseph Smith’s New York neighbors report knowledge of what we now call the First Vision. Hence, the most probable interpretation connects this account with Moroni.
An angel from on high
The long, long silence broke…
- Parley P. Pratt
Psalm 110 is Jesus practically speaking to himself. Remember that he has the fulness of the father within him, so he has authority to do this, even though him and his father are seperate beings. God created Jesus to be just like him and Jesus was given his father’s glory.
Any chance of getting an RSS Feed address so I can have them atomatically download?
[…] Consider, for example, the traditional paintings of the First Vision and of the Book of Mormon vision. In each, the immortal visitors are depicted as physically present in the same space with Joseph Smith. This understanding of visionary experiences quite reasonably inspires an expectation that Joseph’s descriptions of the events should be relatively stable and coherent, an expectation that, to a certain extent, is unsatisfied in the historical record. […]