EVENTS CONCERNING FIRST VISION - PART 3

(Commentary of Primarily Robert Millet & Joseph McConkie)

"In other accounts Joseph mentioned that they exactly resemble each other in features and likeness.  So we don't know for sure if he knew then if the Father had a corporeal, physical body.  At least he didn't know it yet. 

After a little research I discovered that a Presbyterian Reverend Truman Coe in Kirtland, Ohio in writing about the Latter-day Saints in 1836 says this:  'These Latter-day Saints have some strange beliefs.  They even teach that God has a body.'  That says to me that the Saints are at least teaching it by 1836 and perhaps before then.  We certainly know it by Nauvoo, where Joseph Smith declares it in Ramos, Illinois, 'the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans.

There has been a notion that some of other faiths that have tried to popularize that, in the early years, Joseph believed in the God of the creeds, the God of the sectarian world, the God of the Trinity.  Frankly, the facts of the matter don't bear that out.

There is a statement that Joseph made after the King Follet sermon, shortly before Joseph's death that says, 'I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ as a separate and distinct personage from God the Father and that the Holy Ghost as a separate and distinct Spirit. These Three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.'  A pretty strong statement, 'I've always declared that.'  It makes sense since he learned that at 14 years of age.

There is another important principle taught her and that is the relationship between the Father and the Son.

That is, the manner in which the question was answered.  Joseph did not say when he got out of the grove and had asked the question that God answered or that the Father answered.  The answer had to come through Jesus Christ.  Now that's very important.  From the day that Adam introduces the fall, we need a Savior.  From that point, all the revelations of salvation must come to us through that same channel.  The Father introduces.

As if to say, 'Joseph, this is my Beloved Son.  You get all your answers through Him.'  So it wasn't like the Father said, 'I better handle this one; this is big; this is important.  You take over a little later and handle the minor questions.'  No, instead, 'This is my Beloved Son, you hear Him!'  This is priesthood government; the order of heaven. 

Something else that would be easy to pass through is, early on, Joseph learns about the immortality of the soul.  Before him stands a Being who had been crucified, put to death and he learns something about life beyond the grave.  Further, Joseph learned that what James said is true.  Revelation is real.  If someone wants to have wisdom from God, he can go to God and receive it.

Years later, Joseph will write that if he wants to learn, it is not through reading the experiences of others but by going to God directly.  He later said, 'If man could gaze into heaven for five minutes he could learn more than by reading all the books that had been written on the subject.'  He had family experiences before this but now he has had his own experience.

He also learns the answer to his question.  The language of the 1838 experience is very strong.

'All their creeds are an abomination in my sight.'  I think we need to clarify this.  We don't want to sugar coat this on the one hand but we don't want to overstate it either.  I don't think the Lord is condemning all people in other churches, obviously, but he is saying that the creeds trouble Him.  Why?  Because in the early centuries after Christ, there is where we begin to unravel and pull apart.  The scriptures had plainly taught about the nature of God and yet when we begin to dabble about the nature of God, everything else falls.

The nature of God to man, man's ability to reveal himself, man's ability to know God, man's ability to become like God, are all affected.  God has reason to be just a little annoyed.  They took God's body, they took His gender, they took his manhood, they took his fatherhood, they took his passion, they robbed him of his family, and they took everything away from Him that is meaningful.

They redefined man and therefore took and insulted all his children, by cutting off His association of His children with Him.  Now has He a right to be just a little offended and a little upset about all this?  I think so, I think so.  I think the language should be fairly strong or He doesn't have those passions that we say ought to be restored here. 

In spite of this, Joseph was courageous and never squeamish about telling the story of the first vision to answer questions about who we are or what we are.  By way of summary to this remarkable discussion let us close by two statements by leaders of the Church.  First by President Gordon B. Hinckley:

'To me it is a significant and marvelous thing that in establishing and opening this dispensation, our Father did so with a revelation of Himself and His Son Jesus Christ.

As if to say to all the world that he was weary of the attempts of men, earnest as those attempts might have been, to describe and define Him.  The experience of Joseph, in a few moments in a grove, on a spring day in 1820, brought more knowledge in the reality and substance of God and His Son than men had arrived at in centuries of speculation.'

Then this from J. Rueben Clark, who taught: 'There are for the Church and each and all of its members two prime things which may not be overlooked, forgotten, shaded or discarded.  First, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Only Begotten Son of the Father in the flesh.  He was raised from the tomb, a resurrected Being, a Perfect Being, the first fruits of the resurrection.  The second of the two things for which we must all give full faith is that the Father and the Son actually in truth and in very deed appeared to the Prophet Joseph in a vision, in the woods; that other heavenly visions followed unto Joseph and others, that the Gospel and the Holy Priesthood after the Holy Son of God were in truth and fact restored to the earth for which they were lost by the apostasy of the primitive Church.  These facts and each of them, together with all things necessarily implied therein or flowing there from, must stand unchanged, unmodified, without dilution, excuse apology or avoidance.  They may not be explained away or submerged.  Without these two great beliefs, the Church would cease to be the Church.  We can now understand why God would say something so profound to Joseph Smith as this:  'This generation shall receive My Word through you.'"

EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE FIRST VISION PART 2 (From a round table discussion consisting, for the most part, of the comments of Robert Millet & Joseph McConkie)

"Before his first vision, it is good that Joseph does not have a title, or a position in society that would dictate that those types of people are the ones God speaks to.  Instead, he is a boy of no reputation whatsoever at this particular time.  Let's turn our attention to the first vision or the appearance itself. 

We are aware that there is more than one account of this.  The most beautiful and complete account is what we have in the Pearl of Great Price, that is, the 1838 account, dictated by the Prophet, the canonized account, found in our standard works, but there are others.  We have an 1832 account, the earliest.  We have an 1835 account; an account that was part of the Wentworth Letter, written in 1842 that included the Articles of Faith.  Let's talk about each of those accounts and then the theological significance set forth in the Pearl of Great Price account.

How does the 1832 account differ?  We find it's more personal and that God is speaking in the first person.  God tells Joseph that his sins are forgiven him, which we don't have in the 1838 account.  It's personal as well as institutional.  Joseph is searching for the true church but he is also searching for the remission of sins.  Further, he is concerned about the sins of the world.  He is not only concerned that he might be lost but is also troubled that the world might be lost.

This phrase, 'that at about twelve years of age, my mind became seriously impressed;' (I don't think my mind was seriously impressed about anything when I was twelve), for the welfare of my immortal soul, which led me to searching the scriptures.' (At age twelve!) 'Believing as I was taught that they contained the word of God.'

As he does, what does he see?  He sees that the world is not living in a way harmonious to the scriptures.  It is bothersome to him when he sees people preaching one thing and living another.  He labored with this burden from age twelve to age fifteen.  This was not an overnight thing, but something he had worked at for years, which was the pattern of James 1:5, pondering about it over and over again and being patient.

He notes in this 1832 account that he was 'filled with love for many days and rejoiced with great joy, however, he 'could find none that would believe the heavenly vision.'  Not only that, but the attitude is not, 'that poor wayward kid, let's put our arm around him and straighten him out,' but it's 'let's kill the kid, we've got to put an end to this.'  There was absolutely no Christian love shown to the world's most perfect witness of Christ. 

We can only know the truth of a religious matter by the quiet whisperings of the Holy Ghost, but you can learn something about the significance of a religious matter, by the kind of opposition it engenders.  The first vision has to be an illustration of that; other things you can think of are the Book of Mormon.  What is it about black letters on a white paper that encourage people to do good, love the Lord, keep the commandments and trust in Christ, that engenders such opposition?

The same is true of the doctrine of only one true church, or Temples?  If I didn't know by the power of the Holy Ghost to my soul that what goes on in the Temples is eternally significant, I might sense something is up by the way people react to the announcement of the building of a temple.  Literally, all hell breaks loose in an area when we announce that we are going to have a temple here.

What about the 1835 account of the first vision?  How did it come about?  It involved Joshua the Jewish minister.  Who was he?  He was a fraud who claimed to be the reincarnated Matthias, the ancient apostle.  Joseph saw right thru him and while conversing with him Joseph relates a brief history of the Church, which includes a few little details, here and there, not mentioned in the 1838 account.

One of them was this little phrase, 'I saw many angels in this vision.'  We have wondered what were those angels doing?  Did they talk to him or were they just in attendance?  He also stated 'and many other things did he say to me which I cannot write at this time.'  All of the things he must have learned that he could not tell us.  One of the distinctive things about Joseph Smith, and this is tough to do in this Church, and that is to find an honest story teller.

Joseph Smith is one of the only persons you can cite that would purposely under tell his story.  You expected more.  He would never tell you everything that took place.  He would tell you part of that story and lay the foundation of the understanding he wanted you to have, instead of embellishing.  You have a wonderful contrast at the end of the Pearl of Great Price between Joseph's account of John the Baptist and this very beautiful, elaborate, and lyrical language of Oliver Cowdery.  Joseph wasn't given to that, he was very, very terse but he always under told.  If he told more, they could be distracters to what he wants us to see.

Things are not always told us, for example, as with John the Beloved and what he does not tell us of Christ.  We would think to turn to him to learn more about the mount of transfiguration and instead, he is the only one who does not mention it or the sacrament or the suffering in Gethsemane, he does not titillate our imagination.  Bruce R. McConkie mentioned that 'the Lord does not reveal things to blabbermouths.' 

What about the 1842 account or Wentworth Letter?  There is a softening of the language, such as, other churches were 'believing incorrect doctrine,' instead of the harsher, 'they were an abomination in my sight,' since it was going to a different group so it was tailored to that audience.  It also mentions that 'the true church was not on the earth and that Joseph would be an instrument in revealing that.'  Also the Father and Son 'exactly resembled each other in features and likeness.'

What of the critics who like to 'have at us' about these differing accounts and differences in detail?  I think immediately of Paul's experience with the vision of Christ on the road to Damascus told in three places in the Book of Acts: Chapters 9, 22 & 26.  With that there are differences in detail and in every one of them you can learn different things.  It is very typical of real life, with first hand experiences and the audiences you are speaking to.  Another example is the four Gospels.  All teach of the life and story of Christ but there are differences in the detail that don't exactly line up in every case and are again given to different audiences.

If every one of the accounts agreed verbatim, that would be a clear sign for suspicion and fabrication.

We have mentioned various accounts of the first vision but there were still others.  The first published account was actually written by Orson Pratt of the Twelve in Edinburgh, Scotland, as told to him by Joseph.  He writes some very eloquent things about the necessity of finding the truth.  Listen to this language:  'It also occurred to his mind that God was the author of but one doctrine and therefore could not acknowledge but one denomination as His Church.  Such a denomination must be a people who believe and teach that one doctrine, whatever it may be and build upon the same.  He often reflected upon the immense number of doctrines now in the world that had given rise to many hundreds of denominations.' 

After that, Elder Pratt states that Joseph did not want to trust his salvation to the fallibility of man, but he wanted an answer from the heavens.  Also in the Pratt account Joseph feared, as the light descended, that the forest would burst into flames, because of the nature of the glory of God's appearance.  He concludes this account, like the 1830 account, saying, after the vision withdrew he felt it 'leaving his mind in calmness and peace indescribable.'  That's a beautiful description of the spirit of revelation.

Now we turn to the Joseph Smith History and read some very significant verses:

15. After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

Here Joseph learns of the actual reality of a satanic being.  It isn't just some theory or idea for explaining why things go bad.

16. But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

From that account, what things stand out that are theologically significant?  A host of things come to mind.  What were the first words spoken by God in this dispensation?  He said the word Joseph.  God knew him by name.  That's the way every vision begins.  The person is called by name.  In this case, it is that great Hebrew name Joseph, which means he who gathers for God.  So we introduce this great dispensation of the gathering, in effect, with that announcement.  Every detail of this is just absolutely perfect… 

Another thing that is revealed is the divine nature of God.  Think about as Isaiah says, 'who shall dwell in the devouring fire, who shall sit in everlasting burnings?'  (Isaiah 33:14) Or the Prophet Joseph himself, towards the end of his ministry saying God himself is a consuming fire.  You think about what Joseph says at the King Follet sermon.  There he is trying to give comfort to the family and says, 'how consoling to the mourners to know that when your loved one is called upon to pass beyond the veil of death, he shall yet come forth to dwell in everlasting burnings.'  You've got to know a little doctrine to find that consoling.  'Everlasting burnings' is descriptive of what we would call the divine nature of God.   

Now we will deal with God's tangible, or corporeal body or His bodily characteristics.  Let's be strict and honest with ourselves.

What do we know about God's physical body in this experience?  This again is an example of Joseph, the very disciplined story teller.  Joseph did not say, I saw the Father and the Son.  If he did and you were cross examining him, you might say, 'Oh, was there a sound track with this vision or were they wearing name tags?  How did you know?  'He didn't say that.  He simply said, 'I saw two personages.' That's significant.  It establishes the fact that they are personages.  They resemble men, they have the features and likeness of men and they are in every sense of the word as separate and distinct as two of you are.  That would seem to be sufficient and even monumental.  It does clear away the cobwebs of the past as far as what the Christian world believes about the distinct natures of the Father and the Son."  (Part 3 to be continued)

TEACHING OUR CHILDREN

BYU Professor Robert Millet, former Dean of Religious Education, bishop, stake president and temple worker has said the following:  "Why must we teach our children to repent?  Because God is a Man of Holiness, as it says in Moses 6:57, He can't tolerate sin.  Let me give you an example.

 As part of my calling, from time to time, in an interview, I have asked young people how they are doing in terms of worthiness.  Let's suppose they confess a moral transgression.  Then I say, 'OK Brenda, Why is this wrong?  And Brenda says, 'Because we shouldn't do this.'  'That's right Brenda, we shouldn't do this.'  'Why shouldn't we do this?'  'Well, because my parents tell me I shouldn't do this.'  'That's right Brenda.  'Why would they tell you that?'  'Well, because the Church teaches you shouldn't do this.'  'That's right Brenda.  Why would the Church teach such a thing?  'Well, probably because the scriptures say you shouldn't do this.'  'Very good.  Why would the scriptures say that?'  Well, 'cause Heavenly Father doesn't want me to do this.  'Very good, Brenda.  Why doesn't Heavenly Father want you to do this?'

And then there is a long, long pause.  We've now reached beyond the precept, the precept, thou shalt not and I'm pushing her to the principle and it's not catching.  We fail to teach our children and our grandchildren properly if all we teach is the precept and the commandment and they don't understand that behind the precept is the principle and even behind the principle is the person of God.  God is Holy and He expects us to be Holy.  He can't tolerate unholiness or sin."

 JAMES 1:1-6

BYU Professor Richard Draper writes, "The Book of James (the half brother of Jesus) was one of those highly debated books and there were those who did not want James to be part of the Canon or collection of books we call the Bible.  Fortunately, the voices on the opposing side were stronger.  That disputation continued down to the days of Martin Luther, who called it an 'Epistle of straw' because it emphasized works instead of faith."

"Originally James did not believe his brother was the Messiah and even taunted Jesus (John 7:2-5).  At some point, however, he had a powerful conversion experience owing, in part at least, to his brother's post resurrection appearance to him, as recorded by Paul in his list of certain people to whom Jesus appeared (1st Corinthians 15:7)."  (Verse by Verse, Acts Through Revelation, Ogden & Skinner, pgs. 264-265).

BYU Professor Joseph McConkie writes, "If we read from the Book of James we discover that it is not written to a specific group or congregation, like many of the epistles were but is a general epistle.  Written to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, greeting.  How are you going to do this?  You say you are going to write a letter to the twelve tribes of Israel who are scattered.  How is this letter going to be delivered and what kind of postage is it going to take?  How do you address the letter?  But James is not concerned about this at all.  It is as if he senses that it will somehow go to all the twelve tribes, (and it does thru the Bible)."

Then he launches into this little mini discourse on patience and then says, 'If any of ye lack wisdom, let him ask of God.  He doesn't say if ye lack money, or you want to be more beautiful or famous.  If you want the wisdom of heaven, then heaven is interested in responding." 

Let's turn to the Joseph Smith History and read why it is so important to ponder on scripture.  Joseph Smith History 1:10-12 (pg. 48 in the PofGP)

Again, BYU Professor Joseph McConkie:  "You have just read one of the finest scriptural descriptions of the spirit of revelation that you will find anywhere.  What's happening here is Joseph is having a revelation that says 'Joseph, go get a revelation.'  Revelations beget revelations, so in the very real sense, the greatest revelation of our dispensation may have been this one. The Holy Ghost is working thru an institutional revelation to bring about an individual revelation.

 To repeat: for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

I think that, the underlined portion is the most important instruction that is given to a missionary or anyone else that goes out to deliver the Gospel to those not of our faith and even with those who are of our faith.  What we need to do is extract ourselves from the war of words and the tumult of opinion.  We need to have a religious experience that is immediate and personal.  We need to do what Joseph did and get answers from heaven, thru prayer and not get lost in this big battle that has been known to Europe for thousands of years. 

The missionary needs to teach a person how to pray, so that the person can get their own answers.  James 1:5 is as true for us as it was for Joseph.  We love the Bible, we teach the Bible, but one doesn't go to the Bible to teach the restoration.  We get that information from God.  Two things stand out: One, he reflects on it again and again.  Two, he takes James 1:5 from its 50 A.D. context and brings it into 1820 or, in other words, he likens the scripture.  He doesn't just assume that James is talking to people in 50 A.D., instead, that principle has an everlasting influence and import.  If we know that God spoke to one man, then, we know that with the same conditions and terms he would speak to everyone."