Podcast: Download (49.1MB)
It is the foundational event of Mormonism–or at least that is what it became. Beginning in 1832, Joseph Smith began to publicly talk about a visionary experience he had in a grove of trees nearby his home in upstate New York. However, what he told audiences differed from year-to-year in what feels to be substantial detail. Is this evidence of rank fraud? Or, as his supporters say, does it indicate the natural human tendency to emphasize/omit details of a story based on one’s audience or perhaps his own changing understanding of the importance of certain theological principles. Brittany Nielson and I speak with LDS Church Historian Dr. Stephen Harper about his book, Joseph Smith’s First Vision: A Guide to the Historical Accounts. Harper currently works on the Joseph Smith Papers Project production team for the LDS Church.
This podcast interview was provided courtesy of Russell Stevenson.
Russell Stevenson is the “Mormon History Guy” and the views expressed are his own may not reflect those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that of FairMormon.
Dr. Harper, thanks for doing this podcast. I’m curious how you respond to the accounts of both William Smith and Oliver Cowdery who both specifically mention that Rev. Lane gave a sermon that motivated JS to ask which church he should join. William is even so specific as to mention that the sermon was “what church shall I join?”, wherein he recommends that his audience use James 1:5 as a method to decide. The problem is that if these accounts are to be believed, then JS more than likely did not hear this sermon until the latter part of 1824 at the earliest, which entirely upsets the narrative of the First Vision as I’m sure you will recognize.
When a historian tells you up front that he is going to be objective – that he is about to tell you he truth – I agree one should approach his work with skepticism. So it goes for Grant Palmer, and so it goes for Nephi (1 Nephi 1:3).
When a historian goes even further – in my mind and appeals to an exclusive supernatural epistemology (e.g. a “very Mormon epistemology”) I grow even more skeptical. I wonder whether he can offer anything more than faith-preserving possibilities where more probable reconstructions are warranted.
And when the same historian also admits he is more interested in “the subjectivity of history than the objectivity of it” … well, I simply don’t know what to make of that. Honestly.
I see no evidential grounds for Professor Harper claiming that Joseph was “probably” referring to two separate divine beings in the 1832 account [1]
Read the whole text. “Lord” refers to the “crucifyed” Jesus. Any alternative interpretation pushes beyond a plain reading of the text and merely a forced harmonization. Talk about presuppositions. I guess this is were the “Mormon epistemology” kicks in. Seems to permit the manufacture multiple attestation.
“therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in attitude of calling upon the Lord a piller of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the [Lord] opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life
“Whereof one cannot [handle to historical facts reasonably], thereof one must be silent.”
[1] He used “probably” in an earlier FAIR interview.