By Study, Part 1: Kinderhook, First Vision

The very next day, and for several days, I spent nearly all of my time researching. I managed to still feed our family, keep the house from falling to pieces, do laundry, and shop for Christmas, but it was all slipped in during breaks.

I've always loved really searching things out, gathering as much information as I can, and fitting it all together, but this was different. There was so much information, so readily available, but everything I ingested was difficult emotionally. I could see where things were going for me.


But let me back up and go slowly.


There were several important things I looked into in the next few days.


First, the Kinderhook plates, which I'd never heard of, though I think a great deal of members with a Church history fascination have. I found an explanation of what is commonly known and some information for further thought on mormonthink.com, a site that is open to all viewpoints on Church history and doctrine but put together by members, not by embittered ex- or anti-Mormon activists, which brings me to an important aspect of my search.


Really important note: I made sure that any of my research I did was on sites that are friendly to the Church, even if they don't agree with everything. I didn't want exaggerations by someone who'd been offended by past experiences. I also made sure that I looked at articles that were backed up, well documented with sound sources, or at least as sound as you can get, considering it all started about 190 years ago.


So, the Kinderhook plates did, in fact, punch a big hole in my bubble. After researching it more thoroughly, I had to concede that the stories weren't just lies by ill-intentioned people. Joseph Smith began a translation on plates that were made as a hoax. He didn't complete it, maybe because he didn't think there was any reason to, or he worried about a trap, or he'd made the first part up out of pressure and knew he couldn't translate the rest? So many possibilities, but none of them reflected well on my idea of what a chosen prophet of God would do.


If you're interested in doing your own research, the mormonlink.com page is a good place to go, especially because they have a links section at the bottom that connects to other sites both written by critics of Joseph Smith and by apologists defending the LDS Church.


Next came the various versions of the First Vision, which I'd mentioned I'd heard before, ever so long ago. Except maybe not in their entirety. In any case, I looked into them again, and I was surprised at a few really important things. For one, there's no mention of God the Father until 1838. I knew that before, which I thought was okay, really, because Christ is mentioned previously, and he was the main communicator in the version we learn at church. What I had failed to notice was that in at least a few of the accounts either in his personal writings or recorded as spoken to other, friendly members of the Church, he mentions that angels appeared to him and declared that Jesus is the Christ, rather than stating the Christ appeared to him. In fact, Brigham Young spoke of the first vision as including only an angel.


There are other significant issues with the first vision.
1. Joseph Smith said this happened in 1820, at a time of great excitement around religion in the area, and that his mother and other family members had joined the Presbyterian Church. There were, in fact, more converts to religions in the area in 1824-1825, when a revival was taking place locally, than previous years. From 1819-1823, converts were average to low. Additionally, Lucy Mack Smith and some of her children joined the Presbyterian Church at that time, after Alvin had died and they were looking more at organized religion. However, ridiculous as it seems, the idea that Joseph Smith may have claimed the wrong year and age that he had a remarkable, unprecedented vision of the Father and the Son is not something to ruin my testimony over. 


2. Joseph Smith said he was persecuted for saying he'd had this vision, but in fact he was a frequent and honored addition to a scripture study group at the local Methodist Church during over the next several years. (Grant Palmer)


3. In the official version located in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith says he came home and told his mom that he had found out Presbyterian was not true. Not only did she not mention this conversation in her biography, which (of course) featured a lot of important things about Joseph Smith's calling, but she doesn't mention the first vision at all. Again, that's not something that would ruin my testimony alone. It doesn't prove anything, but it doesn't help.


Apologists clarify (justify?) the changing accounts of Joseph Smith by stating he was bringing up different important points along the way, and understood it best after reflecting on it for 18 years, rather than somewhere in the first dozen or so. I have to agree with this analysis:

S. Dilworth Young was a senior member of the First Council of the Seventy, and one of the General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It is apparent from this Improvement Era excerpt below, that Young was surprised to learn of Joseph's evolving accounts about the first vision and seems to indicate that Brother Young was somewhat distressed upon learning about this.  (emphasis added)

This statement is from the June 1957 Improvement Era magazine:

"I cannot remember the time when I have not heard the story,.concerning the coming of the Father and the Son to the Prophet Joseph Smith."

"I am concerned however with one item which has recently been called to my attention on this matter. There appears to be going about our communities some writing to the effect that the Prophet Joseph Smith evolved his doctrine from what might have been a vision, in which he is supposed to have said that he saw an angel, instead of the Father and the Son. According to this theory, by the time he was inspired to write the occurrence in 1838, he had come to the conclusion that there were two beings."

"This rather shocked me. I can see no reason why the Prophet, with his brilliant mind, would have failed to remember in sharp relief every detail of that eventful day. I can remember quite vividly that in 1915 I had a mere dream, and while the dream was prophetic in nature, it was not startling. It has been long since fulfilled, but I can remember every detail of it as sharply and clearly as though it had happened yesterday. How them could any man conceive that the Prophet, receiving such a vision as he received, would not remember it and would fail to write it clearly, distinctly, and accurately?" Improvement Era, June 1957, p 436

All these issues with the first vision are disturbing to me. Some, obviously, moreso than others, but taken as a whole they're unsettling enough to cause significant doubt. Not as much as the Kinderhook plates, but on top of that issue, the foundation is cracking. Seriously cracking.