Scott Woodward:
Welcome to Church History Matters Come, Follow Me Edition, where we are systematically diving into every section of the Doctrine and Covenants throughout the year 2025. We have a lot to talk about today, so let’s get into it. Hello, Casey Griffiths.

Casey Griffiths:
Hello, Scott Woodward. How are we doing?

Scott Woodward:
So good.

Casey Griffiths:
Excellent. Excellent.

Excellent

Wonderful.

Scott Woodward:
Yes. We get to talk about the First Vision today, Casey. This is a good day.

Yeah. This feels like we’re getting to the main course. First two weeks of Come, Follow Me are kind of set up, overview. Section 1 is the best possible overview you could have. But now we’re getting to the main course and talking about one of the most pivotal events of the Restoration.

Scott Woodward:
Let’s remind our listeners that this year, every section of the Doctrine and Covenants, we’re going to outline with four Cs. We got the context, what was going on historically when this section, or today this history, was written? Number two, what’s the content itself? Like, what did the revelation say or what does the history actually say? Number three, what are the controversies that may be embedded in this text or around this history that we’re talking about? Then number 4, what are the consequences or the major effects or takeaways from this particular revelation or history? So we’re going to walk through those four Cs today like we’ve been doing in the last two episodes. And Casey do you want to start us out with our first C?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. In fact, let me start out by reminding everybody that we did an entire series on the First Vision.

We di.

Casey Griffiths:
You can go back and read that if you have a couple, or listen, if you have a couple extra hours. But one thing I want to mention really quick is that there are multiple accounts of the First Vision. That’s one of the things that’s controversial about it. But in a nutshell, really quick, the earliest account is written in 1832. This is an unpublished history. It doesn’t appear until after Joseph Smith’s death. It’s probably the most controversial of the four that come directly from Joseph. It talks about his feelings, talks about the appearance of the Lord, emphasizes forgiveness of sins. And we’ll get to it when we talk a little bit about controversies. The second is found in Joseph Smith’s journal, in his, in his 1835 journal. He has a conversation with a man named Robert Matthews. He shows up at Joseph’s door claiming that he’s a Jewish minister named Joshua. And it turns out over the course of their conversation that he’s not Jewish, nor is he a minister, nor is he named Joshua. But Joseph Smith relates the First Vision to him. And this is the earliest one where he mentions for sure two beings that appear.

Casey Griffiths:
He also mentions other angels, and he mentions a, a dark force that tried to stop him. The account that we’re dealing with today, and the canonized account, was written in 1838. And we’re going to give you some context for that in just a second. But that’s the official account that’s been placed in the Pearl of Great Price, has been there since the 19th century, and it’s because it’s the official account. We’ll, we’ll go into some reasons for that. Then there’s the 1842 account of the First Vision. It’s also known as the Wentworth Letter. Parts of the Wentworth Letter were canonized. That’s where the Articles of Faith appear. It mirrors very closely the 1838 account. It seems like after 1838, they wanted to stay with that narrative and make sure that it, it felt official. Alongside that, though, there’s multiple secondary accounts of the First Vision. The earliest time it appears in print is Orson Pratt, who publishes it in a pamphlet that appears in Edinburgh, Scotland. We assume Orson heard it from Joseph firsthand, but it has a number of interesting details.

Scott Woodward:
And we got to say that this seems like Orson heard it from Joseph firsthand because Joseph’s 1842 account, his own account, actually borrows from Orson Pratt, which is, like, a very cool endorsement by Joseph Smith. Like, he really liked how Orson Pratt wrote his own experience about the First Vision.

Casey Griffiths:
So Orson Pratt, secondary account published first. Orson Hyde publishes an account in Germany. Then there’s other people like David Nye White, who’s a newspaper reporter from Pittsburgh. There’s Levi Richards, who’s one of Joseph’s friends. There’s Alexander Neibaur, who’s a Jewish convert. And we’re going to be kind of using all of these today to augment what’s found in 1838. But let’s talk about why 1838. So in 1838, Joseph Smith launches on a project to write the official history of the Church. In fact, a lot of you might remember seeing the six-volume blue History of the Church, or there was like a smaller paperback version. That’s what they start writing in 1838, shortly after Joseph arrives with his family in Far West, Missouri. In writing this history, Joseph Smith collaborated as well. He worked with Sidney Rigdon and George W. Robinson, who served as his scribe. And this particular account is really remarkable for its clarity, for its simplicity. I love to share this quote from Arthur Henry King. He was an English professor from the United Kingdom who converted to the Church and reflected on how just the style of the 1838 account impressed him. Here’s what he wrote. He said, “When I was first brought to read Joseph Smith’s story, I was deeply impressed.

Casey Griffiths:
“I wasn’t inclined to be impressed. As a stylistician, I spent my life being disinclined to be impressed. So when I read his story, I thought to myself, this is an extraordinary thing. This is an astonishingly matter-of-fact and cool account. This man is not trying to persuade me of anything. He doesn’t feel the need to. He’s stating what happened to him, and he’s stating it not enthusiastically, but in quite a matter-of-fact way. He’s not trying to make me cry or feel ecstatic. That struck me, and that began to build my testimony, for I could see that this man was telling the truth.” And so, even though there’s four, sometimes five, depending on how you count them, first-hand accounts that come from Joseph Smith, we tend to focus on the 1838 account because it’s probably the most detailed of all the accounts. It was the official account. It’s what Joseph Smith intended to put forth to the public. In the opening he even says that he’s writing it to disabuse the public mind and put them in possession of the facts. It’s also probably the most widely available account. It’s probably the first account that any member of the Church or anybody else reads of the First Vision, and it’s canonized.

Casey Griffiths:
So in 1880, the Pearl of Great Price was canonized and became one of the four standard works of scripture.

Scott Woodward:
As part of the Pearl of Great Price, right, we get the Books of Moses, Book of Abraham, and then this, Joseph Smith—History is part of that package deal. 1880, we get new scripture. That’s awesome.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, so, so I mean, when we say it’s canonized, we mean that the entire First Presidency and Twelve felt that it was worthy of inclusion in the scriptural canon, and the Church sustained it, and all of that kind of elevates this account above the others, as wonderful as they are, as the most official account of the First Vision, and probably the place where we would ask anybody to start if they want to understand the First Vision and Joseph Smith’s experiences. Remember, though, by 1838, Joseph Smith had shared the First Vision multiple times. There’s a couple sources that say he shared it with great frequency in Kirtland. He’d recorded it at least twice in 1832 and 1835. But the 1838 account is unique, too, because it’s for the public. There’s indications from earlier writings that Joseph may have initially seen the vision as a private experience and was somewhat reluctant to share it with the public, partially because he has this intense system of witnesses, and the First Vision is a singular experience. It just happens to him. The 1838 account, to keep in mind, emphasizes the public implications of the vision, and its primary intention is to set the record straight and frame Joseph Smith’s experience and the rise of the Church within a Christian context so that other Christians stop persecuting the Church.

Casey Griffiths:
So that’s a valuable part of the context, too, is in 1838, we’ve just undergone an intense season of persecution in Kirtland. Things are heating up in Missouri. We’re going to be forced out of Missouri within a couple months as well. And all of that informs Joseph Smith, as he’s writing this down and working in collaboration with other scribes. So he does emphasize other religions, and, and how there can be sometimes hypocrisy within other religions as well. All right, let’s get to the content. And so, Scott, fire away. There’s a lot to digest here.

Scott Woodward:
So many good verses here. And we’re just going to kind of walk through them, and maybe Casey will just go every few verses. We’ll just switch off. Does that sound good? We’ll add contextual and other kinds of commentary in here as we go. So let’s have a party. I’m going to start in verse 1. “Owing to the many reports,” it begins, “which have been put in circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons in relation to the rise and progress of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all of which have been designed by the authors thereof to militate against its character as a church and its progress in the world, I have been induced to write this history, to disabuse the public mind and put all inquirers after truth in possession of the facts as they have transpired in relation both to myself and the Church, so far as I have such facts in my possession.” Notice the very defensive tone here. The timing of this writing is significant. So at this point in time, he had fled with his family from Kirtland, Ohio, which had been the headquarters of the Church since 1830, in the midst of one of the worst apostasies in the history of the Church.

Scott Woodward:
And this was all about the, the contention over the failure of the Kirtland Safety Society Bank, which had caused a lot of issues among Saints. They lost the money in a bank investment and a lot of apostasy, a lot of fallout, a lot of Church leaders who were angry at Joseph. Things were, needless to say, rocky. Things were rocky in Kirtland. Joseph has fled. Once he arrives in Far West, Joseph endures the excommunication or disaffection of several of his longtime friends and partners in this work, like Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, a few members of the Quorum of the Twelve, members of high councils in the Church. It was brutal. And so during this time, the prophet felt like he needed to emphasize the divine nature of his calling because people are calling him a fallen prophet. But this history is also written in the midst of persecutions that are happening in Missouri. So you kind of have it coming from one from within the Church, and then you have it coming from the other side from outside the Church. And so you’ll notice from verse one, he is defensive at the get-go. He is saying, “There are many reports which are being circulated by evil-disposed and designing persons relative to the rise of this church.”

Scott Woodward:
And I’m writing this, he says, “to disabuse the public mind and put all inquirers after truth in possession of the facts.” This is going to be, we can expect a very fact-based account. It’s going to be clearly trying to help people see things from the correct perspective in the midst of all kinds of slander and evil-disposed and designing persons trying to tell the story in the most negative way possible. And I think you do any digging in Church history and you start to find people talking about Joseph in this way, and the Church. And so here he is saying, Let me set the record straight. By the way, many of those in Missouri who are persecuting the Saints are Christians. In writing this history, it’s interesting to watch how Joseph is reaching out to genuine Christians by framing the Restoration narrative and his experience at the beginning here as his own search to find the truth by appealing to the Bible. This is a Christian trying to figure out what’s true and what church he should join and how he gets forgiveness of sin, all those things, something that hopefully his Christian audience can nod their heads to.

Scott Woodward:
I think he’s calculating here to show how much common ground with other Christians we have and to show that our Church exists because Joseph Smith took the Bible seriously.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. And talking about the neutral tone, that’s interesting context you add that Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer and the Whitmer family all left around this time. But it seems like in the history, he’s very fair to them. Like, he doesn’t criticize Oliver Cowdery or go out of his way to make the Whitmers look like they’re wicked or anything. He does bring up complexities that happen with the Whitmers, but I think for the most part, he’s not trying to smear anybody. And that’s kind of what he relates. So let’s go to verse 2. He says, “In this history, I shall present the various events in relation to this Church in truth and righteousness, as they have transpired, or as they at present exist, being now the eighth year since the organization of the Church,” 1838. And then the story starts, “I was born in the year of our Lord, 1805 on the 23rd day of December in the town of Sharon, Windsor County, state of Vermont. My father, Joseph Smith, Sr., left the state of Vermont and moved to Palmyra, Ontario, now Wayne County, in the state of New York, when I was in my 10th year or thereabouts. In about four years after my father’s arrival in Palmyra, he moved with his family into Manchester in the same county of Ontario.

Casey Griffiths:
“His family consisting of 11 souls, namely my father, Joseph Smith, my mother, Lucy Smith, whose name, previous to her which was Mack, a daughter of Solomon Mack, my brothers Alvin, who died November 19, 1823, in the 26th year of his age, Hyrum, myself, Samuel Harrison, William, Don Carlos, and my sisters, Sophronia, Katharine, and Lucy. Let me pause there for just a second and, and point out a kind of neat thing that the Church is doing this year with the Come, Follow Me curriculum. Alongside each of these sections of Joseph Smith—History and the Doctrine and Covenants, they’re adding in a section called Voices of the Restoration. And the first Voices of the Restoration segment is the Smith family. And so we could go into a little bit of background about Joseph’s brothers and sisters, but we’re actually going to bring in an expert to talk about them and do a whole episode on it. This is Kyle Walker. Kyle Walker has written several books about the Smith family, and he is amazing, and he’s a good friend. And so don’t think right now we’re short-changing the Smith family. What we’re actually doing is telling you we’re going to do an entire episode just on Joseph Smith’s family, his mother, his father, his siblings.

Casey Griffiths:
In the interest of time, we’re going to speed past this right now. We do want to emphasize that his family was all incredibly supportive of what he did. But we’ll save the the, the in-depth exploration of that for, for that episode, which should come out two days after this episode. That’s going to be our pattern when we have a Voices of the Restoration segment to do, is we’ll do the regular Come, Follow Me content, and then we’ll do a special episode with an expert.

Scott Woodward:
There’s our teaser guest with Kyle Walker, Smith family scholar, talking about how each member of the Smith family was supportive of the Restoration and contributions they made to the work as it unfolded. So that should be fun. Okay. Verse 5, “Sometime in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in the region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it. And great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people. Some crying, Lo here, and others, Lo there. Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist. Now, what Joseph is describing here is the cultural phenomenon at the time that’s referred to as the Second Great Awakening. His family moves there right in the midst of this. And the Second Great Awakening is second in reference to the first. The First Great Awakening, it happened like 70 or 80 years earlier. It was a Christian revival movement that swept Protestant Europe and especially the American colonies in like the 1730s and ’40s.

Scott Woodward:
And its focus on people who were already church members, trying to help wake them up to, like, having a vivacity in their living their Christian life to help them have an intense, like, personal experience with God. Now, fast forward 70, 80 years, we’re now in the midst of the Second Great Awakening, which is a, a Protestant revival movement that began early 1800s. And this is focusing on the unchurched. And its purpose is to pull people back into the churches. According to one source, only like 7% of Americans at this time attended Sunday church meetings regularly. And about this time that the Smiths moved to Palmyra, this Second Great Awakening fervor was sweeping that region. Joseph called it the entire district of country, seemed affected by this. And so every denomination is going to send ministers to hold revivals to gain converts, sometimes 10, 20, 30 ministers of different denominations at the same time, preaching night and day, and they would go in, like, batches of three or four weeks at a time. So Joseph mentioned that some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterians, and some for the Baptists. It’s interesting in Palmyra proper itself, the village of Palmyra, there’s only one church building at this time in 1820.

Scott Woodward:
It was a frame building that belonged to the Western Presbyterian Church, which will be attended by Lucy and Hyrum and Samuel and Sophronia in Joseph’s family. The Methodists that Joseph mentioned were actually meeting in homes of settlers and in schools, indoors, outdoors. Baptists had erected a meeting house about two miles west of Palmyra, and only about 11% of the broader Palmyra-Farmington population at this time were active church members in 1820. And around this time, because of this Second Great Awakening movement, like, people are joining the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Baptists in the hundreds and the thousands. This area that the Smiths are living in is sometimes known as the burned-over district because so many preachers came to this district. Many of the converts at this time believe that this great awakening heralded, like, this new millennial age of reform to remedy the evils of the day in preparation for the Second Coming of Jesus, something like that. So anyway, verse 5 has, just kind of drops us into that context. Verse 6, he says, “For notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased.”

Scott Woodward:
This idea of, like, this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, the way Joseph says that, is something that he wanted. Later in Nauvoo, in one of those second-hand accounts of his First Vision, recorded by Alexander Neibaur, Alexander said, quote, “Brother Joseph told us the first time he had a revival meeting, his mother and brother and sister got religion, and he wanted to get religion, too. He wanted to feel and shout like the rest, but he could feel nothing. This extraordinary scene of religious feeling, people are getting the spirit of it, right? And Joseph wanted it, he didn’t have it. “Yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real. For a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued, priest contending against priest and convert against convert, so that all their good feelings, one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.”

Casey Griffiths:
Beautiful writing. Again, I’m struck by, like, the flow of the language in this account. It’s just well done. He picks up the narrative and says, “I was at this time in my 15th year. My family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely my mother Lucy, my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison, and my sister Sophronia.” And these are two points of controversy that we’re going to deal with a little bit later on. How old was Joseph when this happened? He says he’s in his 15th year. Just to translate from 1900’s speak, that means he’s 14. You have a year zero, right? In his 1832 history, he specifies, though, that this wasn’t like he went to a couple meetings and then found the First Vision. He says in his 1832 history, quote, “From the age of 12 years to 15, I pondered many things in my heart concerning the world of mankind, the contentions and divisions, the wickedness and abominations, and the darkness which pervaded the minds of mankind.” And so he does spend several years kind of working through this. And this is helpful, too, because sometimes critics of the First Vision will say, Oh, there’s not evidence of this religious activity.

Casey Griffiths:
But Joseph kind of expands that to a three-year span where there’s plenty of religious activity going on. I mean, you called it the burned-over district. I’ve got a book called The Burned-Over District, written by a non-Latter-day Saint that’s just about this region of Western New York where Joseph Smith lived and the religious excitement that was there. So there’s plenty going on. And then I love this passage. This used to be my favorite to quote when I was a missionary. He says, “During this time of great excitement, my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness. But though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time, my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them, but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations that it was impossible for a person, young as I was and so unacquainted with man and things to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong. My mind at times was greatly excited.

Casey Griffiths:
“The cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all their powers of reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or at least to make people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists, in their turn, were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others. In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself, What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right? Or are they all wrong together? And if any one of them be right, which is it? And how shall I know it?”

Scott Woodward:
So well described. He is a seeker through and through here.

Casey Griffiths:
I’m going to quote from a secondary account of the First Vision. This is from…

Okay.

Casey Griffiths:
Orson Pratt’s 1840 account. And again, we’re assuming Orson talked to Joseph Smith about this. Orson writes, “It also occurred to his mind that God was not the author of but one doctrine, and therefore could not acknowledge but one denomination as his church, and that such denomination must be a people who believe and teach that one doctrine, whatever it may be, and build upon the same. He then reflected upon the immense number of doctrines now in the world, which had given rise to many hundreds of different denominations.” And boy, that is something you can relate to. The message of Christianity is so simple and so beautiful. Why is there so much confusion? Why does everybody fight over it all the time? This is really relatable stuff, especially for me.

Scott Woodward:
Why do you say for you?

Casey Griffiths:
When I was a kid growing up, I’m not going to say I had a faith crisis. I don’t think I ever seriously considered another church. But I did have, like, problems with Christianity, all the stuff that Joseph Smith was dealing with. Like why have Christians been involved in so much violence? And why did they seem like their violence is sometimes Christian-on-Christian violence? Why can’t they get along? I mean, we’re still wrestling with this today, right?

Scott Woodward:
I mean, that’s, that is the context for which Joseph or into which Joseph wrote this, right? The Missouri persecutions were starting to ramp up. And anyway, yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
Well, I think every person that’s serious about religion grapples with those questions sooner or later, don’t they? Just the idea of how come there’s so much confusion and why is religion, which is supposed to bring us peace from God, so contentious sometimes?

Scott Woodward:
And Joseph is just explaining this so well that so many of us can nod our heads, and I think people in his day could nod their heads and understand where he’s coming from. Okay, let me keep reading verse 11. “While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter, and fifth verse, which reads, ‘If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.’ Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did, for how to act, I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know. 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.

Scott Woodward:
“At length, I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness, in confusion, or else I must do as James directs. That is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to ask of God, concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom and would give liberally and not upbraid, I might venture.” Now, this 1838 account moves immediately to Joseph reading James 1:5, as we’re seeing here. But the prophet’s 1832 account, as you mentioned, actually records a more intensive, extensive search throughout the scriptures and several realizations before Joseph comes to the conclusion to ask of God. For instance, Joseph wrote in 1832, “I became exceedingly distressed, for I became convicted of my sins. I felt to mourn for my own sins and for the sins of the world.” He came to the conclusion, he says that, quote, “By searching the scriptures that mankind did not come unto the Lord, but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith, and there was no society or denomination that was built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ, as recorded in New Testament.” At the same time, Joseph’s study of the Bible led him to say, “I learned in the scriptures that God was the same yesterday, today, and forever, that he was no respecter of persons, for he was God.”

Scott Woodward:
And then he reflects on the beauty and wonder of God’s creations surrounding him, writing, “When I considered upon these things, my heart exclaimed, All these things bear testimony and bespeak an omnipotent and omnipresent power, a being who maketh laws and decreeth and bindeth all things in their bounds, who filleth eternity and who was and is and will be from all eternity to eternity.” This is a cool teenager. He is thinking about scripture. He’s looking up at the sky, at the stars at night, and seeing so much order, so much beauty, so much grandeur. Then he’s looking down and seeing what’s going on amongst the Christian sects and how they’re fighting with each other over doctrine, misquoting scriptures and interpreting them. This kid is saying, God can’t be the author of both of those, both the confusion down here and the perfect order and beauty, majesty up there. And so scripture is what leads Joseph into both that pensive mode, but then gives him the courage to ask. And by the way, we’re going to see this throughout his life, the importance of scripture as a catalyst in leading the prophet to receive additional revelation. This is a pattern that we’ll watch play out throughout the Restoration, throughout his life.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, and let me make a case here for reading all the four accounts of the First Vision. They’re all in Gospel Library. If you go under Church history and click on First Vision accounts, they’re all there. The 1838 account is written for the public, right? So you miss some of Joseph’s more internal dialog. It’s so incredibly well written, but you do miss that a major concern that he was struggling with wasn’t just which church is true, which seems to be the public question that he kind of fixes on. But also the question of, How do I repent? Like, I’m a sinner, I’m a screw-up. How do I connect with God and receive forgiveness? And with some of my students today, that’s why the 1832 account or the 1835 account, which both emphasize his quest to receive forgiveness of his sins, sometimes resonates a little bit more than 1838. I’m making a case here to read all four because some of this beautiful language about him wondering about his soul and mourning for the sins of the world isn’t found in the 1838 account because it gets straight to the point. It tells you what’s going on.

Scott Woodward:
And I sometimes wonder if maybe given the context of 1838, he should have put in this wrestle with his own sinfulness. I’m not going to judge Joseph, but there’s a lot of people in Kirtland who have been calling Joseph a fallen prophet and a sinner. Joseph’s like, Yeah, I’ve been, I’ve been wrestling with that since my teenage years, and God has forgiven me so many times. I find that one of the most powerful and poignant parts of the First Vision. I don’t know why he omitted that in the 1838 account. I think it’s beautiful. I think it would have fit the context really nicely. For whatever reason, he didn’t put it in this account. That’s fine.

Casey Griffiths:
There’s still hints of that in here, but it’s not the central sort of spine of the narrative that he’s seeking forgiveness of his sins. And I think he rightly notes that most people would be wondering about is, Why did you start a church? And the central spine is, I started a church because of what God told me.

Scott Woodward:
And God told me after the Bible prodded me to ask him. This is a very Christian seeker story.

Casey Griffiths:
He’s using that narrative, and it becomes sort of a narrative that everybody that joins the Church can adopt to. Like, read the scriptures, pray, seek revelation. All right, what happens when he does, verse 14? “So in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of 1820. It was the first time in my life that I made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties, I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally. 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.” And let me add in a little bit of context here. This is from David Nye White. David Nye White is a reporter from the Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette who interviews Joseph Smith in 1843. And I guess because he’s a news reporter, he adds in all these details that you don’t find in other ones. For instance, Joseph’s account to David Nye White says, “I immediately went out to the woods where my father had a clearing, and went to a stump where I’d stuck my ax when I quit work, and kneel down and prayed, saying, ‘Oh, Lord, what church shall I join?’”

Casey Griffiths:
And those little details are probably things that, you know, a newspaper reporter picks up on, but kind of do confirm certain parts of it. We have records from the time that indicate that the Smiths were clearing their farm of trees. They were trying to create arable farmland. All this kind of matches to the story and kind of increases the historical credibility. So we can’t prove that Joseph saw God in Jesus Christ, but does it match up with land records? Yeah, it does. And that just kind of helps a little bit. So this is where Joseph has his encounter with the supernatural force. It’s not the Father and the Son, but a dark power intended to sort of steer him away. He writes, “I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I’d 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.” So this attack is, is mentioned in many of the accounts. It shows up first in the 1835 account.

Casey Griffiths:
He kind of describes it as a physical force, but with aspects of sort of a mental invasion as well. In the 1835 account, Joseph Smith says, “I heard a noise behind me like some person walking towards me. I strove again to pray, but could not. The noise seemed to draw near, and I sprung up on my feet.” Now, let me add, 1842 account by Orson Hyde, he says, “The adversary then made several strenuous efforts to cool his ardent soul. He filled his mind with doubts and brought to mind all manner of inappropriate images to prevent him from obtaining the object of his endeavor.” And again, I don’t know what inappropriate image as a 14-year-old would be privy to in 1820. But that’s interesting, too, that it’s kind of described as inappropriate thoughts coming to his mind as well, that it’s both physical but also mental, and then he gets into more depth.

Scott Woodward:
So then he says, “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.” This moment of Joseph reaching, stretching with a prayer to overcome this demonic attack is remarkable. He’s going to find out later. D&C 10:5 will say, “Pray always that you may overcome Satan and the servants of Satan that uphold his work.””’ Jesus will say in the Book of Mormon, which Joseph doesn’t know about yet here, but he’ll tell his Apostles, “Satan desires to sift you as wheat, so pray always.” Prayer is the power that overcomes the Satanic onslaught here. I think that’s really powerful. So Joseph overcomes this demonic attack through this renewed attempt to pray through the darkness and connect to the power of God.

Scott Woodward:
In the 1835 account, he says, “I kneeled again. My mouth was opened and my tongue liberated, and I called on the Lord in mighty prayer.” Orson Hyde’s account adds that “the overflowing mercy of God came to buoy him up and gave new impetus to his failing strength. However, the dark cloud soon parted, and light and peace filled his frightened heart. Once again, he called upon the Lord with faith and fervency of spirit.” It’s the fervency of his spirit that seemed to match the fervency of the dark power to take him down, and he was able to push through and the light comes. In fact, this is a consistent element. All of Joseph Smith’s accounts is the appearance of light. Sometimes he describes it as a pillar of light, sometimes as a pillar of fire or a pillar of flame. I like both of those, actually. The 1840 account by Orson Pratt provides the most detailed observation of this phenomenon. I like this. Let me quote him. He said, “He at length saw a very bright and glorious light in the heavens above, which at first seemed to be at a considerable distance. He continued praying while the light appeared to be gradually descending toward him.

Scott Woodward:
“And as it drew nearer, it increased in brightness and magnitude, so that by the time it had reached the tops of the trees, the whole wilderness for some distance around was illuminated in a most glorious and brilliant manner.” I love how Orson Pratt’s account characterizes the light as having almost physical dimension to it. He says, “He expected to have seen the leaves and the boughs of the trees consumed as soon as the light came in contact with them. But,” Pratt writes, “perceiving that it did not produce that effect, Joseph was encouraged with the hopes of being able to endure its presence. It continued descending slowly until it rested upon the earth, and he was enveloped in the midst of it.” What a cool description, the slowness of the light descending.

Casey Griffiths:
And it’s interesting in the accounts how he kind of alternates between pillar of light and pillar of flame, but that Orson, like he said, he thought the trees were going to burst into flames around him because the light was pretty intense, which makes it sound like this was more than, you know, a candle light, which he would have been used to. He says “above the brightness of the sun.” Something really unique, really focused, the type of thing that an 1820s person had never really encountered before.

Scott Woodward:
And I love how he says, when the light actually touched him, Orson Pratt describes that there was like a physical sensation. He said, “When it first came upon him, it produced a peculiar sensation throughout his whole system, and immediately his mind was caught away from the natural objects with which he was surrounded, and he was enwrapped in a heavenly vision.” Joseph’s 1832 account adds, “I was filled with the spirit of God.” What an image.

Casey Griffiths:
Verse 17, “It no sooner appeared that 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.’” And I got to admit, I wasn’t reading, I was quoting. That’s burned into my memory because I, when I was a missionary, I loved that part of the discussion. It seemed like that was always when the TV came on or the dog started barking or a plane flew overhead, too. However, a couple nuances to this. In the 1835 account of the vision, Joseph describes the Father appearing first, writing, “A personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame, which was spread all around and yet nothing consumed. Another personage soon appeared like unto the first, and he said unto me, ‘Thy sins are forgiven thee.’” And in an 1844 account, this is the Alexander Neibaur account, he also describes the Father as having appeared first, and then says, after a while, another person came to the side of the first.

Casey Griffiths:
And so you see this in some of the cinematic depictions of the First Vision, mostly the newest one, Ask of God, which you can find on YouTube.

Which is a great synthesis of all of these accounts, right?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. Go look up Ask of God on YouTube because they say at the first that it synthesizes all of the accounts of the First Vision, and it shows the Father appearing first and then the Son. Another little detail in the 1842 history in the Wentworth Letter, Joseph wrote that the beings were “as two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features and likeness, surrounded with a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noonday.” So they exactly resembled each other. It’s kind of an interesting detail. We’ve mentioned this earlier, but in the earliest accounts of the First Vision, the 1832 and 1835, Joseph mentions the personal detail that the first word spoken by Jesus Christ pointed towards his question of, How do I receive forgiveness of my sins? In the 1832 account, he records, “The Savior spake unto me, saying, Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiveness thee. Go thy way, walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments.

Casey Griffiths:
“Behold, I am the Lord of glory. I was crucified for the world, that all those who believe on my name may have eternal life.” And this is hinted at in other accounts, like Orson Hyde writes, “They told him his prayers had been answered, and the Lord had decided to grant him a special blessing.” Doctrine and Covenants 20 hints at the First Vision by saying the first elder, that’s Joseph Smith, had received remission of his sins. But that’s part of the story, too. It’s not in the 1838 account because, again, it’s personal and not public, but that probably was the first thing that was said to Joseph. The Savior told him his sins were forgiven and called him by name.

Scott Woodward:
How cool is that as like an opening to a dispensation that Joseph’s first name is used, and then the very next thing is, your sins are forgiven you. That’s the kind of God we’re dealing with in the latter days here, a personal God, a forgiving God. I don’t know why I love that so much. I love that so much, Casey. I love that the first words spoken by Jesus to Joseph were that his sins were forgiven him. Maybe it’s because I’m a convicted sinner myself. I can relate with this. And sweeter words were never spoken, than your sins are forgiving you. Okay, so let’s move to verse 18 and 19. This is where the 1838 account gives more words of Jesus. And this is, this a wrestle. So let’s walk through the wrestle here. I like this. He says, “My object in going to inquire the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join.” By the way, I think that’s connected to the forgiveness of sins, obviously, right. I want to know which church I should join so that I can know which way is the way to salvation. “No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself so as to be able to speak, then I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right?

Scott Woodward:
“For at this time it had never entered into my heart that they were all wrong, and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong.” This is where the language is kind of strong, and I’m going to talk about this. They were all wrong. “And the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight, that those professors were all corrupt, that they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” To add to that, the 1832 account says, “Behold, the world lieth in sin at this time, and none doeth good, no, not one. They have turned aside from the gospel, and keep not my commandments. They draw near to me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me. My anger is kindled against the inhabitants of the earth, to visit them according to their ungodliness, and to bring to pass that which has been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and apostles. Behold and lo, I come quickly, as it is written of me, in the cloud, clothed in the glory of my Father.”

Scott Woodward:
1842 history, Joseph says, “They told me that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom, and I was expressly commanded to go not after them, at the same time receiving a promise that the fullness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto me.” So there are a few different angles of what Jesus said about the other churches. And Casey, frankly, this can come across kind of harsh. It’s hard to slice it any other way. They were all wrong. Their creeds were an abomination in his sight. They’ve turned aside from the gospel. They believe in incorrect doctrines. None of them are acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom, which is really interesting because in other places in the revelations, like Section 10 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which we’ll cover later, Jesus is really gentle and kind to other Christian churches. Sometimes he even calls them my church. Anyone who repents and comes unto me is my church, he says. And so this is particularly interesting, the way that he’s framing this here. If I might, I just want to shine a little light on something that was helpful for me because I think sometimes we miss the most important message here, this idea that they were all wrong and the creeds were an abomination in his sight.

Scott Woodward:
I thought growing up that what that meant was all other Christians believed a bunch of false stuff, and Jesus hated their creed documents because they were full of a bunch of false stuff. I kind of had that assumption in my heart for years, Casey. Until I started reading the Christian creeds, they’re not very shabby, which doesn’t make me call into question what Jesus is saying. It makes me call into question what I thought Jesus was saying. For instance, let’s, let’s just play a little game called Stop Me When I Say Something Abominable. I’m just going to read. I’m going to pick a creed. This will be the Apostle’s Creed, probably written as early as 120 to 150 AD. “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day, he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right-hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

Scott Woodward:
“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of the saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.” You didn’t stop me when I said the holy Catholic Church.

Casey Griffiths:
I, I did you hear me go, hmmm, because I like Catholicism. I think it’s, it’s pretty great. I was also thinking, well, is he using Catholic in the universal term? Like, that’s what it actually means. I don’t agree with everything in Catholic. But yeah, most of the statements there I’m okay with.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, there’s nothing really abominable. And again, we’re not going to read all the creeds. There are some confusing passages or language in some of the creeds. The Nicene-Constantinople creed has some interesting verbiage. There may be a line of, like, obviously, false doctrine that comes up rarely. Like, there’s something called the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion written in the mid-1500s. Here’s a line that you’ll be familiar with. It says, “There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body parts or passions.” But that is, like, so rare that you’re going to find something like that in the creeds. Casey, that it caused me, because I’ve been reading the creeds, I teach world religion courses, I have my students read these and we look for what’s good, true, and beautiful there, as well as, is there anything problematic? It’s like 95% really good. They’re like 95% really accurate with a few occasional lines like that. That were like, No, we wouldn’t agree with that. And it got me thinking that, Is this what Jesus was talking about? Is he saying, I hate their creeds because they’re full of a bunch of wrong statements about me. And I’ve looked back at what Joseph Smith said, and I’m not thinking that that’s what Jesus said.

Scott Woodward:
Let me say this. I’m going to try to be brief. History of Christianity. Christians have historically, like, hyper obsessed over truth statements, right. This is where the creeds come from. This is what they’re about. They’re primarily trying to, like, dial in accurately what the truth is about the nature of God. And maybe their motive in making creedal statements was good. I’d like to think so. Maybe it was intended to help all come together to the unity of faith. But the effect of creedalism has not been to create just common ground. It has also created battleground, where for centuries, Christians have fought one another, pointed out each other as heretics, and mutually excommunicated each other. And the problem here is not in trying to get doctrine right. The problem is not in honestly seeking understanding. The problem is when you think that your group is more likely to be saved because you have more accurate truth statements than other groups do. This is why Jesus says that their creeds are an abomination in his sight. It’s not that the creeds don’t contain accurate truth statements about God. They do. We could read them for hours. But what’s abominable about the creeds is when you think that the only people who are going to be saved are those who subscribe to your creed while everybody else will be damned, as if that’s what God really cares about.

Scott Woodward:
Who has the longest list of truth statements about him and his nature? Like, if you look in Jesus’s ministry, he never went around telling people that they needed to believe in a list of truth statements in order to be saved. That wasn’t his gospel. That wasn’t his good news. His message centered around an announcement that God’s kingdom was coming and that there were a few key actions we could take, repentance and baptism, that would trigger a covenant relationship with him and make us heirs of that coming kingdom. He cared a great deal more about our hearts being faithful to him in that covenant relationship than he did about our lips speaking all the right truth statements. I think this is what Jesus is getting at. It’s not what the creeds say, it’s the belief that the creeds are where it’s at, you know, something like that. If you think the problem is erroneous beliefs, then we’re going to think that the solution is about restoring correct truth statements. Right, like, this is what the Restoration is about. It’s about correct truth statements.

Casey Griffiths:
Now, I’m not, I’m not going to disagree with you, but I do want to push back just a little bit. I was at a meeting once where Terryl Givens made a really interesting point, which was we always assume that the creeds are an abomination is a shot at the early Christian creeds, the, the ones that people go to, like the Nicene creed, the Athanasian creed. But Terryl said, let’s put this in context. He mentions that some of his family had joined Presbyterianism, and the main creed in Presbyterianism is the Westminster Confession. And you did quote that earlier. And that is in part that God is a being without body, parts, or passions. And I passionately disagree with all of that. I mean, and I think the First Vision proves that all that’s wrong, right? That if God doesn’t have passions, he doesn’t really care about us and is sort of indifferent to us. And there’s a bunch of other stuff in the Westminster Convention, like predestination that I do think is abominable if a person believes it. And so I get what you’re saying, and I do think that the creeds and the environment they created were part of what God wasn’t okay with. But I’m also okay with the traditional interpretation that there just was incorrect doctrine in the creeds that needed to be corrected.

Scott Woodward:
Let me push back on your pushback. Verse 19 says, “This personage who addressed me said that, quote, All their creeds were an abomination in his sight.” This seems to be a much broader net than the Westminster Confession, right. This is all their creeds. And so that made me think about all the way back, all the way to the Apostles’ Creed, all the way to the earliest. And so, by the way, there are statements in here about beliefs, right. He says, They teach for doctrines the commandments of men. Jesus seems bothered that. They’ve turned aside from the gospel. They believe in incorrect doctrines. I’m not saying this is not on the radar. But what I am saying is that if we think the problem is about erroneous beliefs, that’s the main issue, then we’re going to think that the solution is restoring more accurate truth statements. But if we look again in verse 19, he says, “They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They teach for doctrine the commandments of men.” Then he says, “Having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” If we think that problem is about lacking the power of godliness, then we’re going to think that the solution is something different.

Scott Woodward:
And it’s that thing that Jesus says in the 1842 account. He said, “At the same time, I received a promise that the fullness of the gospel should at some future time be made known to me.” And fullness of the gospel is a term throughout the Doctrine and Covenants that we’re going to see is equated with the term the everlasting covenant. This becomes a synonymous term. Everlasting covenant, fullness of the gospel. That if we think that the problem is about lacking access to the fullness of the gospel, the everlasting covenant, the power of godliness, then we’re going to look for a different solution in the story of the Restoration. That leads, I think, to Levi Richard’s account in 1843. I think this is what Jesus is saying again here. Let me just quote Levi Richard’s account, he said, quote, “He, Joseph Smith, received for an answer that none of them were right, that they were all wrong, and that the everlasting covenant was broken.” None of them were right. Not right in what way? They were all wrong. Wrong in what way? And I think the answer is there. The next line. The everlasting covenant was broken. If you had all the truth statements about God in the world on a piece of paper, but you didn’t have a way to access the power of godliness, you’re wrong.

Scott Woodward:
You’re not right. You’re not able to be able to connect with God in a meaningful covenant relationship. Then flip it around the other way, what if you have access to the power of godliness, you can connect in a meaningful covenant relationship, but maybe you’re missing some truth statements about the nature of God. Is there a way for you to be saved in this scenario? I think we would all say, Yeah, you can learn line upon line as you go. You need that covenant. You need the relationships. You need the power of godliness. You need a way called the everlasting covenant to be connected with God in an official covenant relationship so that you become an heir of God’s kingdom in preparation for Christ to come to be able to rule and reign with him. This is salvation. This is how we get out of the captivity and power of the devil. This is the raison d’être of the Restoration. As we studied last week with Doctrine and Covenants 1, he said, I called Joseph Smith and I gave him revelations so that the everlasting covenant could be established, not so that we could get a bunch of more accurate truth claims about the nature of God.

Scott Woodward:
Although we’re going to get correction and doctrine there, too. But the question is, Which one is more important? Is Is there a major issue here about being able to connect with God in the power of godliness through the everlasting covenant, through the fullness of the gospel? Or is it just about having the most accurate truth statements about God? I think it’s the first, Casey. And I think this is why Jesus is saying, What I don’t like about creeds, what’s abominable about creeds is people think that that’s where it’s at, and it’s not. You can draw near to me with your lips. If you have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof, this isn’t working. What do you think about that? Push back, if you’d like.

Casey Griffiths:
I think it can be both. I think it can be both. Like obviously, all the narratives emphasize that there was major hypocrisy happening. Like, the statement that gets repeated is, “They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” And I don’t think that’s an indictment of Christianity in general. I think it’s an indictment of the people Joseph was dealing with. But I also think the creeds could be 95% right and 5% wrong, and that wrongness could be enough to seriously mislead people. Like if you believe God is a being without body parts or passions, are you going to have the kind of relationship with him that results in faith unto life and salvation? Like, the Lectures on Faith deal with this a little bit later and say, You have to have a correct idea of his character, perfections. But what I’m saying is that 5% is enough to stop a lot of people from connecting with God. So I, I think it’s a little bit of both, though. Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Scott Woodward:
Well, I just want to say this, and I’m not pushing back now. I want to say, as the weeks go on, as we watch how the story of the Restoration unfolds, we’re going to see both. We’re going to see both true doctrine connected, clarified. But undergirding that, we’re going to see this restoration of the everlasting covenant, this fullness of the gospel. We’re going to see restoration of priesthood keys. We’re going to see restoration of ordinances which enable mankind not just to have a form of godliness, but to actually experience the power thereof. I think you’re right. For argument’s sake, maybe I’m emphasizing this power of godliness more because I think that’s the part that I missed my whole life, and maybe now I’m compensating. I think you’re right. I think it’s about both. But I think my natural tendency, and maybe I’ve seen others in our Church, the tendency is to really emphasize the doctrinal piece. Like that’s what matters. They’re so wrong. They’re so wrong about God. They’re so wrong about the Trinity. They’re so wrong this. And Jesus is on our side. He hates that, too. And I don’t know that that’s the number one thing here.

Scott Woodward:
I think he hates it when we can’t actually connect with him. I think he hates it when we can’t actually tap into the power of godliness.

Casey Griffiths:
I agree with you. And I want to I want to point out that Scott has written a brilliant paper on the Levi Richard’s account and that idea of the everlasting covenant being broken. And once you start to look for that, it pops up again and again and again…

Everywhere, yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
In the revelations from some of the earliest ones. Like I think D&C 22 mentions it, and then it just kind of is this golden thread that goes through the rest of the Doctrine and Covenants that God is trying to put back in place the everlasting covenant, which we talked a little bit about last week in D&C 1, the mission statement of the Restoration, he mentions this. So I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m just pushing back a little bit, and you pushed back against my pushing. And it’s been a delightful shoving match is, is all that I’m saying. Verse 20, “He again forbade me to join with any of them, and many other things did he say on to me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength, but soon recovering in some degree, I went home.

Casey Griffiths:
“As I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, ‘Never mind, all is well. I’m well enough off.’ I then said to my mother, ‘I’ve learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.’ It seems as though the adversary was aware at a very early period of my life that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom. Else, why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me almost in my infancy?” So what’s recorded in Joseph Smith—History, we want to emphasize, is part of the story. All the accounts together really help you put it together. For instance, in the 1835 account, Joseph adds,”= “I saw many angels in this vision,” suggesting that there were other messengers in addition to the Father and Son. If we had what they said, that might be helpful. After the vision was over, several accounts mentioned that the encounter left the prophet weak and exhausted. In fact, the prophet told David Nye White that, “When I came to myself, I was sprawling on my back, and it was sometime before my strength returned.”

Casey Griffiths:
He told Alexander Neibaur, “I endeavored to arise but felt uncommonly feeble.” And Orson Hyde’s account recorded that “peace and calm filled my mind.” And this is all consistent with the experience of other prophets who’ve entered into God’s presence. Earlier prophets, like Daniel, like Lehi, like Moses talked about being exhausted after they had these divine encounters. Moses recorded it was for the space of many hours before he did again receive his strength, like unto man. And he said unto himself, ‘Now for this cause, I know that man is nothing, which thing I’d never supposed. That’s Moses 1:10. This process is sometimes called transfiguration. In the Book of Moses, that’s how it’s discussed in verse 11. And it’s best explained by the Lord when he taught, “No man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the spirit of God.” That’s Doctrine and Covenants 67:11. And so only the 1838 account, though, records his conversation with his mother after he returned from the grove. This vision has a huge effect on him. And my personal favorite phrase from any First Vision account comes from 1838, which is, “I have learned for myself.” That’s powerful. And that’s maybe, to me, one of the most important principles is that he learned from firsthand experience, not from other people.

Casey Griffiths:
He went directly to God. And that’s what we hope everyone will do today is go to God, get an experience, and learn for yourself. But we need to remember, this is the beginning of his journey, not the end. He’s still got a ways to go, though this is a remarkable experience.

Scott Woodward:
I love that line in the 1832 account, “My soul was filled with love, and for many days I could rejoice with great joy, and the Lord was with me.” I love that he said it was for many days, too. I think about the most spiritual experiences I’ve had a great, you know, EFY or awesome talk or marvelous General Conference weekend. And I’d say sometimes it lasts for a day or a few days before I feel vulnerable again to temptation, but. So I just smile and appreciate what Joseph is saying there. Many days. He says many days. This was a powerful effect on him. Verse 21 is where the persecution begins. He says, “Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers who was very active in the before-mentioned religious excitement. In conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior. He treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such as visions or revelations in these days, that all such things had ceased with the Apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.

Scott Woodward:
“I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution which continued to increase. And though I was an obscure boy, only between 14 and 15 years of age in my circumstances in life, such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me and create a bitter persecution. And this was common among all the sects, all united to persecute me.” Now, Joseph doesn’t mention the name of the Methodist preacher. We don’t know exactly who he was. There’s some theories. This is the most thorough account of Joseph’s negative perception when he shared the vision. And I think that fits the purpose of the 1838 history. Remember, this is a time of persecution. This is where Christians continue to fight against the Latter-day Saints. And Joseph’s like, Man, this has been happening from the beginning. What am I doing wrong? I must be a disturber and annoyer of the devil’s kingdom because every time I speak and tell this experience or everywhere we try to establish the Church, it just seems to kick up darkness again.

Scott Woodward:
And I don’t know how to account for this. The professors of religion are taking notice of me. And they have ever since I’ve been a boy. This is dumbfounding to Joseph. In Levi Richard’s account, Joseph says, “Earth and Hell had opposed him and tried to destroy him, but they had not done it, and they never would.” Similarly, Joseph told David Nye White, he said, “When I went home and told the people that I had a revelation and that all the churches were corrupt, they persecuted me, and they have persecuted me ever since. They thought to put me down, but they haven’t succeeded, and they can’t do it.” Now, unfortunately, persecution for the truth became a regular kind of fixture of Joseph’s life. And he learned to cope with it and then flourish in the midst of it. He once said, “Deep water is what I want to swim in. It has all become a second nature to me.” He also says,” I feel like Paul to glory in tribulation. For to this day has the God of my fathers delivered me out of them all and will deliver me henceforth.” Joseph even sees his own suffering and persecution as a way of becoming like the Savior.

Scott Woodward:
At one time, he tells a group of Saints on another occasion, he said, “Marvel not then if you are persecuted, but remember the words of the Savior, The servant is not above his Lord. If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you also. And that all the afflictions through which the Saints have to pass are the fulfillment of the words of the prophets which have been since the world began.” So Joseph really comes to contextualize his persecution as an affirmation that he’s on track, that this is how he knows he’s doing God’s work, because if they persecuted Jesus, they’ll persecute us. That’s one of the Beatitudes, right? Like, blessed you if they persecute you for my name’s sake. You know, it’s like, that’s what they do to prophets.

Casey Griffiths:
And it occurs to me, we’ve read all of his words here. We don’t usually do that, but man, reading the words of the 1838 account are like coming back to a book that I read a long time ago and that I love, like, the words are so beautiful. In fact, let me just cap off the rest of the passage here. He writes, “It has caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy of a little over 14 years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself. Nevertheless, it was a fact that I had beheld the vision, and I have thought since that I felt much like Paul when he made his defense before King Agrippa and related the account of the vision when he had seen a light and heard a voice, but still there were but few who believed him.

Casey Griffiths:
“And some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad, and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision. He knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise. And though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew and would know to his latest breath that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise. So it was with me. I had actually seen a light. And in the midst of that light, I saw two personages, and they did, in reality, speak to me. And though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true. And while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart, Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision. And who am I that I can withstand God? Or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen?

Casey Griffiths:
“For I had seen a vision. I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it. At least I knew that by so doing, I would offend God and come under condemnation. I had now got my mind satisfied, so far as the sectarian world was concerned, that it was not my duty to join with any of them, but to continue as I was until further directed. I had found a testimony of James to be true, that a man who lacked wisdom might ask of God and obtain and not be upbraided.”

Scott Woodward:
I feel like Arthur Henry King was right. He’s just stating what happened to him. He’s stating it not enthusiastically. He’s a really matter-of-fact. He’s not trying to make us cry or feel ecstatic. He strikes you as someone who’s actually just telling the truth.

Casey Griffiths:
Now, speaking of that, that was the content, and that was a lot. But we do want to do some controversies here. So we’ve covered the content of the First Vision, and man, it’s good. But part of this, we got to go to the third C, which is controversies. And there are a number of controversies surrounding the First Vision. In fact, we’ll post a link to this in the show notes, but the Church actually has like a frequently asked questions, like most common First Vision controversies. And some of these are tough for some people, some of them not so much, but we’re just going to run through them really fast. Like, Scott, let’s do like a lightning round. I’ll ask ask you a question and you answer it, and then you ask me a question, and we’ll work our way through these controversies. Again, we didn’t come up with the controversies. They’re in that document from the Church that goes through the controversy.

Scott Woodward:
And that document’s a pretty exhaustive list of First Vision controversies. As I was reading through them, I thought, Yeah, these are all the questions I’ve heard, and I can’t think of any I’ve heard that are not on this list.

Casey Griffiths:
If you can survive this gauntlet, you know the First Vision pretty well. There’s some really specific stuff in here. Okay, so controversy 1, why didn’t Joseph remember or share the First Vision in the exact same way each time he gave an account of it?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, four different accounts. ’32, 1835, 1838, 1842. That right there is part of your answer, right? These there different times of his life. A lot of time has gone by. The contexts were very different in each case. 1832 was very personal. We don’t know if he ever intended to publish it. The context is very private. The language is really intimate. This is the account he talks more about his feelings than any other account, feeling convicted of his sins, feeling forgiven, feeling the love of God for many days afterwards, right. 1832 is intimate and personal, and it’s what you’d expect if it was a private account. 1835 is very different because of his audience. His audience is a Jewish guy, or at least Joseph thought he was a Jewish guy when he was sharing this. So he thinks he’s talking to a Jew, and the audience is going to determine how Joseph shares the account. So to this Jewish man, Joseph says, there were different systems of religion that were vying for each other. He doesn’t really mention the Christian revivals. What matter would that make to a Jew, right? He talks in like religious generalities that both Jews and Christians could relate with.

Scott Woodward:
He spoke of a religious ordeal. This is where he mentions the Satanic attack, his wrestle with the powers of darkness. Jews would be familiar with those stories in scripture, like Isaiah 6 and other places where prophets are called, deep senses of inadequacy or sometimes a fight with darkness. This is the account where he says he saw a pillar of fire, which would be very familiar to Jews. This is the Old Testament Shekhinah , or Shekhinah, the presence of, you know, cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night. That’s a Jewish way of talking about it. He saw many angels. This is the only account he mentions many angels because this would strike up the idea of the divine council that Jews would be familiar with. Anyway, there’s lots of very Jewish things in the 1835 account because Joseph thought he was talking to a Jew. The 1838 account, we’ve covered thoroughly today, which is this context of persecution, and he’s trying to put people in possession of the facts. So what do we get in the 1838 account? It’s the account with the most facts. Dates, times, names, places, time of year. Then the 1842 account is where someone is coming to us.

Scott Woodward:
They’re asking Joseph, Tell us the rise of you people. You guys are very impressive. 1842 in Nauvoo, like, Joseph and the Saints are hitting their stride. Like, that’s a very successful year for Joseph, and people want to know about these guys. This is a very PR tone of an account, and Joseph’s on top of the world. This is where he’s very confident, bringing the world God’s truth. It’s very much a missionary tract meant to help the public who are interested in Mormonism. And he’s very bold. This is where he says things like, “The standard of truth has been erected, and no unhallowed hand can stop the word from progressing.” He’s very like, Bring the world God’s truth. So my short answer would be that the differences in the accounts are because of different contexts and different audiences. I like how Steve Harper talks about how Joseph’s memory over time shifts and changes based on more and more life experiences. You look back on different experiences with more and more context as your life grows and develops and as you have experiences that deepen and sweeten the memories of the past. Perhaps that was part of it as well. Next question.

Scott Woodward:
How many personages appear to Joseph Smith? Did he embellish this aspect in his accounts over time, Casey?

Casey Griffiths:
Good question. So when people say there’s discrepancies in Joseph Smith’s accounts, this is the thing that they’re honing in on. And it has to do with the 1832 account. The 1832 account is one of the four accounts that come from Joseph Smith, and everything from 1835 onward describes two personages. And he is crystal clear, two personages appear. In 1835, he even says, One appeared, then after the other, as if to emphasize it. However, in the 1832 account, he just says, The Lord appeared unto me. And some people have taken that to mean that Joseph didn’t believe the Father and Son were separate it until later, and he kind of retconned the First Vision as a way of making all of his theology connect. Now, there’s major, major issues with this, and a lot of it has to do with the 1832 account, which was published after Joseph’s lifetime. It wasn’t published in Joseph Smith’s lifetime. It’s best to call it a draft, basically. And so we don’t know what kind of refinements it would have gone through. We don’t know if it would have been rewritten. We don’t know if it had been edited at all or if he was just getting it out there while he was writing.

Casey Griffiths:
So here’s a couple of theories. Some people think that the Lord in the 1832 account is just the same word used to refer to both the Father and the Son. He says, “The Lord heard my cry in the wilderness, and while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord, in the 16th year of my age, a pillar of light above the brightness of the sun of noonday, came down from above and rested upon me. I was filled with the spirit of God, and the Lord opened the heavens upon me, and I saw the Lord.” Now, some people have said, Well, maybe the Lord is just the same term referring to both the Father and the Son. Another possible solution is that he may have, in this account, just focused in on Jesus Christ, because the central narrative seems to be around receiving forgiveness of sins. The very next thing he writes is, “He spake unto me, saying, ‘Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee. Go thy way, walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments. Behold, I am the Lord of glory.’” That’s possible, too, that he just simplified the narrative. I still think you can make a pretty good case that he does believe they’re separate because of the revelations given around this time.

Casey Griffiths:
Like 1832 is when revelations up to around Section 85 of the Doctrine and Covenants have been received. And some of those, particularly Section 76, do talk about the Father and Son as separate beings. Like the Son standing on the right hand of God, it talks about them in separate ways. So I don’t think you make a case that he doesn’t believe they’re separate. Again, I mean, this is what they’re talking about, was he only describes one in 1832, and then he describes two in all the other accounts. I think 1832, we don’t have enough answers to how and why it was written. And I also think that it’s possible to look at 1832 and say, He just hadn’t refined his language yet, or that he was simplifying the narrative to just focus on forgiveness of sins. That’s a tougher question, but not one that has caused me a lot of consternation either. So there’s enough questions surrounding that that I don’t have any heartburn over it. Three out of four accounts mention two. Every one of the secondary accounts mention two beings. And again, the revelations from Joseph Smith’s time in 1832 seem to teach two beings, a father and a son as two separate beings.

Casey Griffiths:
No big deal in my mind. So here’s another discrepancy question with the 1832 account. And you heard it when I read it just then. Why do accounts of the vision written by Joseph Smith differ in whether he was in his 16th year at the time of the vision or whether he was about 14 years old?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, great question. I love this question because I have a visual I would like to share. So check this out. So all the accounts say he’s either in his 15th year or he’s 14 years old, except perhaps this one. And we can see Joseph’s handwriting here. How old does Joseph say he was? Notice that it says, “God heard my cry in the wilderness.” And then when he was calling upon the Lord, notice this little carrot here, and then it’s added up here. This has often been interpreted as saying, “16th year of my age, a pillar of light.” But it’s so ambiguous. As we zoom in here. I wanted to see if Joseph Smith’s handwriting would help us decipher what that is. So I started looking at different times Joseph had written fives and sixes, and his sixes are way different than if that’s a six. But then I realized my mistake. I was like, Oh, this is actually, Joseph Smith Papers helps us out here. This is Frederick G. Williams. So I thought, okay, let’s look at Frederick G. Williams’ handwriting. By the way, that’s an important note is that Joseph wrote the main line, and then Frederick G. Williams is the one who inserted this in the 16th year of my age.

Scott Woodward:
Here’s Frederick G. Williams’ sixes. Up here is the manuscript in question. It’s interesting to note that he doesn’t loop his sixes the way that this would be looped if it was a six. So I thought, okay, what if that’s a five? What if this is consistent with his other accounts? So I looked at other Frederick G. Williams’ handwriting, and I’m noticing some interesting things. Notice the loops over here on this five down here. Notice the really long stem on this five here. Notice the little detached hat on this five over here. Bring those together here. I would like to just suggest that this actually a five, Casey. And no one in the Joseph Smith Papers has done anything about this. Maybe I should present sometime about this. I don’t know. But I’m willing to, I’m willing to fight a little bit on this. Not that it matters a ton. It’s just bothersome that critics try to smear Joseph’s accounts by saying he didn’t even know how old he was. But this appears to me to actually be a five. “In the 15th year of my age.” It’s totally ambiguous, I understand, but it does not look like a Frederick G. Williams 6. It looks a lot more like a Frederick G. Williams 5.

Scott Woodward:
Comment in the comments if you agree. I think we have a case that this is “in the 15th year of my age,” just as much so as the 16th year of my age. So it’s fine, Casey, if people want to disagree, and we could talk about memory and how age is the number one thing to leave a memory first and all of that. We just got to make sure we agree on the facts. Like there’s facts, and then there’s inferences upon those facts. And if we can’t even agree on the facts, then what inferences should we make about these, right? The criticism is, he didn’t even know how old he was. He’s inconsistent. How can we even trust him? And I’m looking at this saying, like, Are you sure that’s inconsistent? I’m not sure we know what that age is. And I think it looks a whole heck of a lot more like a five than a six. So I don’t know if we can even fight about the inferences yet because we can’t even agree on the facts. Listen, when people get sidetracked or detracted, like, in their testimony in the, like, thick of thin things like this, I’m just like, Okay, let’s see if I can help out because this is a thin thing, a very thin thing that is not something that should cause you to stumble in your testimony.

Scott Woodward:
If that was helpful, there you go. If that was way too nerdy, I’m so sorry. Okay, next question, Casey. Was there a time when Church leaders concealed the fact that there were various accounts of Smith’s First Vision?

Casey Griffiths:
Yes and no. I want to address the, the central charge here is the Church’s concealing information. Two of the four accounts, the 1838 and the 1842, there’s no attempted concealment. They’re published within Joseph Smith’s own lifetime. 1838 shows up in a Church periodical, so does the 1842. They’re publicly available. There’s no attempt to conceal them. It seems like these charges tend to focus around the 1832 and 1835 accounts, especially the 1832 account. So the 1835 account was written in Joseph Smith’s journal. That’s not widely accessible to people unless you go to Church headquarters. And we have the assumption that the Church archives have always been as immaculately maintained as they are today, but it seems like they weren’t always as much as they could be. In fact, Leonard Arrington talks about going and, like, Joseph Fielding Smith talking to him and then locking him in a cage and bringing in stuff. And there was a time when we were really defensive about our history. But the 1835 account was just in Joseph’s journal, which wasn’t widely published until about the 1960s. The 1832 account, we might not have known existed until we started going through and sort of cataloging everything that was there.

Casey Griffiths:
So it was written in a, in a record that was later used as a letterbook, and Joseph Fielding Smith appears to have limited access to this for a period, but he does later make it available to researchers. So here’s the timeline. In 1965, a graduate student from BYU got permission to publish the 1832 history. Again, it doesn’t seem like any major cover-ups. Joseph Fielding Smith is still alive. It’s just one of those things that you find in an archive. And at that time, there’s no internet, there’s no digital scans until this grad student decided to publish it. It wasn’t really out there. The 1835 account was published in 1966. And then in 1970, so we’re talking more than 50 years ago, the Church published an article in the improvement Era that drew on all four accounts. And I guess maybe that was sort of shocking at the time, but it doesn’t seem like the Church is really trying to cover it up if they’re publishing an article about it in their official magazine. But I mean, even then, the 1838 account, because it’s the one found in the scriptures, is the one most Church members are familiar with. So Church members might have been surprised to know there’s multiple accounts of the First Vision.

Casey Griffiths:
But once it’s explained in historical context, it seems to make sense. And it seems like the Church wasn’t going out of its way to cover this stuff up, to put it out there, to let people know. Of course, in the last couple of years, with the rise of the internet and the easy accessibility to anti-Mormon materials, the Church has become even more transparent. You can go, and on the Joseph Smith Papers site, they go out of their way to put all the accounts in front of you, and not just the accounts, but like the original transcripts you can look at and nerd out just like you were doing just now. Since 2015, Ask of God, which we talked about earlier, it’s a film, it’s about six minutes long, find it on YouTube. Ask of God opens with a narration that says, There were multiple accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision. This draws from all of them. It’s a synthesis. So it seems like, I mean, you can’t make the case that they’re covering it up now. And I don’t think you can make the case going 50 years back that they’ve been trying to cover it up.

Casey Griffiths:
And we’re not quite sure when those documents were cataloged and archived in the Church archives, but it seems like if there was any kind of cover up, it hasn’t been happening for about 50 years. So that feels pretty good.

Scott Woodward:
And once we read the accounts, there’s nothing in them that would need to be covered up. Right, that’s, that’s another thing. It’s like, why would there be a cover up? The accounts are beautiful, consistent. There’s not like some shady thing in one of the accounts that we don’t want anyone to know about. It’s like, they’re great.

Casey Griffiths:
There’s those controversies in the 1832 account that we’ve discussed, but I sort of think that both of those are a nothingburger. Let me ask you a question. Why are there similarities between Joseph Smith’s 1832 account of the First Vision and the accounts of visions recorded by other Christians in his day?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, so Joseph Smith lives in a time and a place in which accounts of spiritual visions were shared a lot more regularly than maybe they are today in religious meetings, in print. And it’s actually possible that in writing about his own experience, Joseph was influenced by the way others describe your experiences, particularly Methodist conversion experiences. Like there’s articles that are written about this. We could put some in the description in the show notes that walk through some of the similarities between Methodist conversion stories and Joseph’s 1832 telling, where he’s going to use some of the language or the structure of that. And that’s to be expected. Like a present-day analogy would be the way Church members bear their testimonies. We often share our testimonies where we use the same phrases or we use similar patterns that are used by others. While the sharing of testimony kind of follows a formula of sorts, the substance is very personal to the individual, right. And so a conversion narrative, which I think is how Joseph saw his own story to begin with, he didn’t see it as institutionally very significant to the Church. That’s going to grow and develop over time. So when he first writes his personal experience following that structure, there is some logic to why he would do so.

Scott Woodward:
Also, for anyone who’s, like, interested in digging a lot deeper into this, Richard Bushman wrote a fantastic article that we’ll also link in the description and in the show notes. And he goes through, specifically, people in Joseph Smith’s day who saw visions and what they wrote about them, and then compares that with how Joseph Smith wrote about his vision. And I liked when we interviewed Steve Harper about this question, Casey, and I liked his answer when we were kind of pushing him on this. He said, Who are we to say that these people did not actually have legitimate spiritual experiences? He said, I’m not sure they didn’t. What we know is that there was a form of Methodist conversion narratives and how to tell them, and this was in the air. And some people were telling stories that way. And Joseph, the fact that he follows that same structure, seems to be highly normal and to be expected in some ways. And so to dig deeper into this one, I think you would want to look at Richard Bushman’s fantastic article about this. Let’s do one more question, Casey. Do you have, do you have one more in you?

Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
Okay.

Yeah, sure.

Scott Woodward:
Here’s the question. Does historical evidence support Joseph Smith’s description of religious excitement near Palmyra, New York, in 1820?

Casey Griffiths:
So using our own rules as historians, right, we’re going to look at supporting sources and see if that supports the details in the story. And a guy named Wesley Walters, that has really challenged Joseph Smith’s First Vision account because he says, Oh, you can’t find anything that says that there was a revival in the spring of 1820. Now, let me mention a couple of things. First, we already talked about this, but one of the benefits of the 1832 account is it actually expands the period of religious searching that Joseph Smith goes through. Starting at age 12 until into his 15th year. So giving us like three years to work with. And if that’s the case, there’s plenty of stuff going on in Palmyra during that time. There’s all kinds of things happening. And historical records from the time make it clear that in Western New York, there was a lot of religious fervor happening. And sometimes this led to big revival meetings. Wes Walter says, Well, there’s records of a big Methodist meeting outside Palmyra in 1818, but Joseph Smith actually doesn’t mention any revival meetings. So trying to tie it to a specific revival isn’t paying attention to the narrative that Joseph Smith shares.

Casey Griffiths:
In fact, all he says is “there was an unusual excitement on the subject of religion.” And almost every historian would agree that that fits the description of Western New York during this time. Again, there’s a book called the Burned Over District that describes the history of the era because preachers would come through and convert a bunch of people, and then somebody else would come through and convert them back. And that led to what they called, you know, it being sort of burned over. There’s huge revivals. There’s records and journals of preachers from the time that talk about the fervor in the area. For instance, Reverend George Lane, who was a Methodist minister, was in that region during both years, speaking on God’s method bringing about the reformations. There were three-day Methodist camp meetings in Palmyra in the spring of 1820 and revivals in the area throughout there. So I mean, honestly, I talked to Gerrit Dirkmaat about this once, and he said, When you think of the most religious part of the country, what do you think of? And I said the south. And he goes, Yeah, but in Joseph Smith’s time, it was the north. It was where Joseph was. On the frontier, where all these people have just uprooted their lives and moved because of different economic forces.

Casey Griffiths:
And when a person kind of uproots part of their life, another part of their life is open for revision as well. So there’s all these people that have just barely moved in, and it’s not a surprise that preachers are coming in and taking advantage of the fact that people are reordering their lives to get them to rejoin the church. So gAnd iven those two factors that we’ve got a three-year window to work with, I think there’s plenty of sources, and we don’t have to pin it down specifically to the spring of 1820, though there was stuff going on in the spring of 1820. We just have to go with Joseph to say there was considerable excitement on the subject of religion. I don’t think any historian of this time period in that region is going to say that there wasn’t. Like, there’s just ample evidence to say that there was.

Scott Woodward:
It’s honestly a brilliant attack by Wesley Walters on Joseph because you cannot prove that Joseph didn’t have a vision. Nobody can disprove he had a vision. But you can disprove some of his claims about the context surrounding the vision. And if you can take those out, then you can take out the likelihood that he actually saw a vision, right. So it’s actually a brilliant attempt, honestly. One other factor, I think, just to throw in is that the assumption that it happened in Palmyra is not founded. Joseph actually doesn’t say that. He says, “The whole district of country seemed affected by it.” And he never says that I experienced it in Palmyra. There’s plenty of evidence of other camp meetings and things happening outside of Palmyra within a day’s journey during this year. Anyway, there’s a lot of factors, but it’s one of those little mental slips that you know, you say Joseph claimed that there were all these camp meetings happening in Palmyra, and yet the record shows no camp meetings in Palmyra exactly during that year, which, by the way, isn’t true. We found some later, but the whole assumption is baseless because Joseph didn’t make that claim. He said it was in the whole district of country, not Palmyra only, so, anyway.

Casey Griffiths:
We’ve got a wider time frame and a wider geographical space to deal in than Wes Walter’s makes it sound like. So it was a nice try, but sorry.

Scott Woodward:
Well, thank you, Casey. That ends our lightning round. Let’s wrap this up with the consequences. What was the aftermath of the First Vision?

Casey Griffiths:
Well, let’s just recognize on a practical level, this is a big deal. It’s the first story that we usually tell people to introduce them to the historical narrative of the Church. And I don’t know if it always was. It seems like in the early Church, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon was the story that we would tell because that one has physical proof associated with it. But the First Vision is really vital to us today. As a way of illustrating that, in 2020, the Church issued a proclamation to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the First Vision and cited it as theophany. This is President Nelson who said, “That theophany initiated the Restoration of the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ and ushered in the dispensation of the fullness of times.” And it seems like the First Vision has only grown in importance. Some would say we didn’t really emphasize it till the 20th century, but there’s no doubt in my mind today that it’s really central to what we teach and believe. And it’s sort of the starting point because it’s such an accessible starting point, the story of a person who’s seeking to know God and what church to join and reads the scriptures and praise to God and gets a revelation is something with wide applicability that still can touch the hearts of people all over the world.

Scott Woodward:
And I think you’re right, and I think we’ve traced this in previous episodes we did in our audio-only podcast where we talked about how the First Vision was really not emphasized much in the first 10 years of the Church, at least publicly. Like we mentioned, 1832 and 1835 accounts were not really published. And so the Book of Mormon has the tangible witness of the reality of the Restoration was really the thing. But over time, the First Vision has really gained momentum in terms of institutional significance to us. I also want to quote something from President Hinckley. I like what he said on this. He said, “Our entire case as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. It was the parting of the curtain to open this the dispensation of the fullness of times. I submit that if Joseph Smith talked with God, the Father and his beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true. This is the hinge on which turns the gate that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life.” I mean, he’s really raising the stakes here. Like, this has now become so significant.

Scott Woodward:
There’s nothing really more important than if God the Father, and the Son, actually spoke to Joseph Smith, because if they did, then all the other dominoes that then follow matter a great deal. And there is something called the Restoration of the fullness of the gospel, of the everlasting covenant, to be able to enable us to connect with the powers of godliness, et cetera. So this becomes pretty big potatoes, and everything starts to, to really rest on this.

Casey Griffiths:
Steve Harper wrote a great article, and that’s the title Raising the Stakes, that over time, we’ve just made the First Vision more and more important, and we seem to be putting more and more emphasis on it. This is the paragraph from the Restoration Proclamation issued in April 2020 by the entire First Presidency and Twelve. And that’s about as much emphasis as you could put on it, like all 15 of the prophets, seers, revelators in our Church are saying this is true. This is what they wrote. “200 years ago on a beautiful spring morning in 1820, young Joseph Smith, seeking to know which church to join, went into the woods to pray near his home in upstate New York, USA. He had questions regarding the salvation of his soul, and trusted that God would direct him. In humility, we declare that in answer to his prayer, God the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph and inaugurated the restitution of all thin as foretold in the Bible. In this vision, he learned that following the death of the original Apostles, Christ’s New Testament Church was lost from the Earth. Joseph would be instrumental in its return.”

Casey Griffiths:
There’s no wishy-washy language there, right? It’s just, This happened. It’s a big deal. Here’s what it means. We’re not backing away from it at all. And I don’t see us backing away from the First Vision anytime soon. There’s complexity surrounding it and placing more and more stridency on saying this is the start of the Restoration. This is the process that any person uses to gain a testimony.

Scott Woodward:
That’s beautiful, man. We can land it right there. Thank you, Casey. This has been fun.

Casey Griffiths:
Okay.

Scott Woodward:
Appreciate it. Thank you for joining us on this episode of Church History Matters. Our new episodes drop every Tuesday, so please join us next week as we continue to dig into the context, content, controversies, and consequences of the revelations of the doctrine and guidance. If you’re enjoying or gaining value from Church History Matters, we would love it if you could pay it forward by telling your friends about it or by taking a moment to subscribe, rate, review, and comment on the podcast. That makes us easier to find. Today’s episode was produced by Scott Woodward and edited by Daniel Sorenson, with show notes and transcript by Gabe Davis. Church History Matters is a podcast of Scripture Central, a nonprofit which exists to help build enduring faith in Jesus Christ by making Latter-day Saint scripture and Church history accessible, comprehensible, and defensible to people everywhere. For more resources to enhance your gospel study, go to scripturecentral.org, where everything is available for free because of the generous donations of people like you. Let me say that again. All of our content is free because people like you donate to make it possible.

Scott Woodward:
So if you’re in a position where you’re both willing and able to make a one-time or ongoing donation, be assured that your contribution will help us here at Scripture Central to produce and disseminate more quality content to combat false and faith-eroding material out there in the digital marketplace of ideas. While Casey and I try very hard to be historically and doctrinally accurate in what we say on this podcast, please remember that all views expressed in this and every episode are our views alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of Scripture Central or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thank you so much for being a part of this with us.