What Do I Think of the Arguments Against the First Vision?

There are many who have made arguments against the validity of the First Vision. As a believer, what do I think of those arguments?

What are the arguments?

Rather than discussing the arguments and giving my thoughts, I have decided to focus on a couple of articles that have already addressed this.

The first is a Gospel Topics Essays called “First Vision Accounts.”¹ In addition to discussing the several First Vision accounts, the essay talks about various arguments against the First Vision, which it calls arguments regarding “memory” and “embellishment.”

The second article was written by Stephen C. Harper, titled, “Evaluating Three Arguments against Joseph Smith’s First Vision.”² Professor Harper asserts that throughout the numerous books and websites that seek to undermine faith in the First Vision, there are historically three main arguments that are repeated by others. These are essentially that there is no such thing as visions or revelations, that the details of the various accounts are inconsistent (this argument includes Joseph’s delay in discussing his vision), and that there was no religious revival in Palmyra as asserted by Joseph Smith. Professor Harper addresses these three arguments in his article, and as a believer, he discusses his own thoughts against those arguments.

These are fantastic articles, and rather than repeat them or try to state them in my own words, I would encourage you to read both of them.

How do I deal with the arguments?

I personally don’t have concerns about these arguments. I have mentioned in prior posts that as an attorney, I have seen arguments made on both sides of issues. Evidence is presented in court, and attorneys can make arguments regarding why the very same evidence supports two opposing viewpoints. In the case of the First Vision, there are those who have argued against the reality of the vision, and there are those who have argued in favor of it. I believe Joseph Smith, and so I believe the arguments in favor of it, and I can make my own arguments in favor of it.

But rather than make those arguments, I want to focus on how we should respond when we hear arguments or opinions that are different from ours.

Professor Harper’s article addresses various arguments against the First Vision, but he also comments on how historians have benefitted by listening to an opposing viewpoint:

“[Wesley Walters] was pastor of the United Presbyterian Church in Marissa, Illinois, when he published in the fall of 1967 an innovative article that asserted that there was no evidence of religious revival in Palmyra, New York, in the spring of 1820, and therefore Joseph’s claim to have been influenced by such religious fervor must be false. Richard Bushman said that Walters ‘performed a very positive service to the cause of Mormon History because he was a delver. He went deep into the heart of the archives. And Mormons had accepted a lot of things as simple facts—for example, that there was a revival in Joseph Smith’s neighborhood around the 1820 period.’ Walters noted accurately that prior to his work, Mormon scholars had ‘assumed that Joseph Smith’s account must be correct.’ According to Bushman, Reverend Walters ‘made us realize that we can’t assume anything. Everything had to be demonstrated and proved.'”³

I absolutely love this comment. After hearing opposition, rather than discount it, rather than rail against it, Richard Bushman (co-general editor of The Joseph Smith Papers)⁴ used it as motivation to research and investigate.

In other words, he listened to an opposing viewpoint, he considered it, and he looked for historical evidence to form his own opinion.

The result? The discovery of historical records proving a revival near Palmyra in 1818.⁵ Pastor Walters wasn’t looking for anything prior to 1820, so when the large revival was discovered to have occurred in 1818, not only did that contradict Pastor Walters’ arguments, but it also provided historical information supporting the 1832 Account in which Joseph said he started his search at 12 years old (which would have been in 1818).

We should listen, and react with kindness.

Opinions regarding the First Vision and Joseph Smith are varied and emotionally charged. This can cause people on different sides of the issue to collide. Rather than simply discuss their viewpoints and listen with respect, they try to convice the other that they are right, which often results in conflict.

There is value in simply listening and respecting the opinions of others. I believe that we should form our own opinions from the historical sources available, rather than blindly trust one side or the other. The significant historical information that was discovered regarding the 1818 Palmyra revival shows the great things that can happen when we simply listen and react with kindness and respect.

Rather than say more about this, I will conclude with Steven Harper’s discussion with Richard Bushman:

“Richard Bushman had just won the historians’ prestigious Bancroft Prize when he responded with civility and grace to the Reverend Walters. When I asked him why he chose to be so courteous, Bushman replied, ‘Simply as a tactical matter in any kind of controversy, it never serves you well to show scorn towards your opponent. That may make the people who are on your side rejoice and say, ‘Kick them again.’ But for those who are in the middle who are trying to decide which truth is right, you just alienate them—you just drive them into the hands of your opponent.’ Sometimes, in an effort to defend the faith, Latter-day Saints have responded with hostility to the critics of Joseph’s vision. If there ever was an appropriate time for such a spirit, it is now past.”⁶

This principle has recently been taught by Russell M. Nelson:

“As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are to be examples of how to interact with others—especially when we have differences of opinion. One of the easiest ways to identify a true follower of Jesus Christ is how compassionately that person treats other people.”⁷

References

1. Gospel Topics Essays, “First Vision Accounts,” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng.
2. Steven C. Harper, “Evaluating Three Arguments against Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” in Exploring the First Vision, ed. Samuel Alonzo Dodge and Steven C. Harper (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, 2012), 307–23, https://rsc.byu.edu/exploring-first-vision/evaluating-three-arguments-against-joseph-smiths-first-vision.
3. Harper, “Evaluating Three Arguments against Joseph Smith’s First Vision.”
4. Religious Studies Center, “Richard L. Bushman,” https://rsc.byu.edu/author/bushman-richard-l; see also Richard L. Bushman and Jed Woodworth, “Richard Lyman Bushman,” in Conversations with Mormon Historians (Provo: Brigham Young University, Religious Studies Center, 2015), 181–230, https://rsc.byu.edu/conversations-mormon-historians/richard-lyman-bushman.
5. Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s Accuracy on the First Vision Setting: The Pivotal 1818 Palmyra Camp Meeting,” in Exploring the First Vision, ed. Samuel Alonzo Dodge and Steven C. Harper (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, 2012), 91–169, https://rsc.byu.edu/exploring-first-vision/joseph-smiths-accuracy-first-vision-setting-pivotal-1818-palmyra-camp-meeting.
6. Harper, “Evaluating Three Arguments against Joseph Smith’s First Vision.”
7. Russell M. Nelson, “Peacemakers Needed,” Liahona, May 2023, 98-101, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2023/05/47nelson?lang=eng.