Gospel Topics Chapter 5 Howlett Part 2

Viewpoint on Mormonism, the program that examines the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from a Biblical perspective. Viewpoint on Mormonism is sponsored by Mormonism Research Ministry. Since 1979, Mormonism Research Ministry has been dedicated to equipping the body of Christ with answers regarding the Christian faith in a manner that expresses gentleness and respect. And now your host for today's Viewpoint on Mormonism. So glad you could be with us for this edition of Viewpoint on Mormonism. I'm your host, Bill McKeever, founder and director of Mormonism Research Ministry, and with me today is Eric Johnson, my colleague at MRM. The LDS Gospel Topics series, A Scholarly Engagement, a book printed in 2020, edited by Matthew L. Harris and Newell G. Bringhurst, brings to light some of the criticisms, you might say, of the original 13 Gospel Topics essays that were released by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints beginning in late 2013 and going on through the year 2015.

We are looking at chapter 5, titled The Cultural Work of the First Vision Accounts essay, by David J. Howlett. And as we mentioned in yesterday's show, David J. Howlett is a member of the Community of Christ. So even that splinter group does have a connection, you could say, with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints headquartered in Salt Lake City. However, they do not officially view this first vision as being quite as important as the LDS Church in Salt Lake City. It's interesting that they chose Mr. Howlett to write this.

There is going to be some bias, you would assume, but I think he brings out some interesting points that should be considered. And in yesterday's show, as we introduce this chapter, he begins by talking about Mormon President Gordon B. Hinckley and the various statements that Hinckley made during his lifetime about the importance of the first vision, even to the point that if the first vision did not take place the way Joseph Smith explains it, that that would cast a huge shadow over the very existence of the LDS Church in the first place. And he notes that Hinckley surely raised the stakes held by LDS members vis-a-vis the first vision. Now in yesterday's show, we read the portion where Howlett correctly notes that for much of its history, the LDS Church had, what he says, by and large acknowledged only one first vision account authored by Smith.

However, this changes in the 1960s, where he says, in the mid-1960s, an LDS graduate student in his master's thesis included the text of an even earlier account of Smith's first vision, an account eventually dated to 1832. Now we should mention, because when you read that it was an LDS graduate student at BYU, that makes you think of some young kid in his 20s, and that's not the case here. Though he's not mentioned by name, this LDS graduate student is a man by the name of Paul Cheeseman. Now at this time, Paul Cheeseman is teaching at BYU, as well as seeking to get his master's degree. So he's in his 40s at this time.

He's not a young man. But it was Cheeseman who ran across what came to be known by Levi Edgar Young, who was a part of the 70s years ago, back in the 1950s. It was Levi Edgar Young who referred to what Mr. Cheeseman had discovered as being a strange account of the first vision. Now in yesterday's show, we read you a portion from the book, Mormonism Shadow a Reality, which was written by Gerald and Sandra Tanner. On page 145, they talk about this strange account, as described by Levi Edgar Young, but we want to continue what the Tanners have to say about this. Because at the bottom of page 145, the Tanners find out about this strange account, and they try to obtain a copy of it. What does it say on page 145, Eric? We became interested in the strange account and wrote to Joseph Fielding Smith, who was the church historian, enclosing one dollar and asking for a photocopy of it.

Unfortunately, this letter was never answered, and we had almost given up hope of ever seeing this document. To our great surprise, however, two strange accounts of the first vision have now come to light. The first appeared in the thesis, An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith's Early Visions by Paul R. Cheeseman. Mr. Cheeseman was a student at the Brigham Young University, and he evidently wrote his thesis as a rebuttal to statements we had made concerning the first vision in some of our publications. Although he tries to support the first vision story, he has reproduced a document written by Joseph Smith himself, which not only proves that he did not see the Father and Son in 1820, but also casts a shadow of doubt upon his entire story of the origin of the church.

This document was reproduced in Appendix D of Paul R. Cheeseman's thesis. Cheeseman states that it, quote, appears to be the earliest written account, end quote, of the first vision. On page 64 of his thesis, Mr. Cheeseman states, quote, This account was never published or referred to by any of the authorities of the church as far as the writer has been able to determine. Instead of going back over and revising, Joseph Smith evidently dictated the story later as we have it in Appendix A, end quote. That's interesting that the word dictated is used, because when I read that, you immediately think that Joseph Smith is actually saying this to someone else who's writing it down. But later on, those who are examining this document are convinced that this is in the handwriting of Joseph Smith, so what we have here is a handwritten account of the first vision by Joseph Smith as early as 1832. Now, what makes this so controversial and what makes it something that church leaders do not want to get out into the public is it's clear that Joseph Smith gives an account that conflicts with what is later known to be the 1838 account. That's the difference between the two, between the 1832 and the 1838 account. Think of it this way, the 1832 account written by Joseph Smith himself is really the first account of this first vision.

The 1838 account would be what we could say is the last account of this first vision. Compare the details between these two and we do see some glaring discrepancies. Now, LDS Church scholars and apologists have tried very hard to convince its membership that these two accounts really don't conflict, they really harmonize. But if that's really true, then why is it, as we read yesterday, when Lamar Peterson went and had an interview with Levi Edgar Young on February 3, 1953, in his notes, he said, told to get higher permission, attained that permission, examined the documents, written, he thought, about 1837 or 1838.

Now, we know that's not true, it was earlier than that. But this is what's in Lamar Peterson's notes. Was told not to copy or tell what they contained, said it was a strange account of the first vision.

Now, that would be Levi Edgar Young saying that. Was put back in vault, remains unused, unknown. If this is supposed to be harmonizing, you would think that the church at that time would have taken that out and printed it on the front page of the Deseret News. I think it's very clear that they saw this as being problematic, and that's why they didn't want it to get out. Unfortunately, now, Paul Archiseman is doing his master's thesis, and he includes the document at the end of it. And the Tanners get a hold of this eventually, and they publish it in 1965. It says at the bottom of page 145 of Mormonism, Shadow or Reality, in 1965, we publish this early account of the first vision under the title, Joseph Smith's Strange Account of the First Vision. It continues and says, because the document was so unusual, some members of the Mormon Church doubted its authenticity, although the Mormon leaders would make no public statement concerning the document. James B. Allen, associate professor of history at Brigham Young University, admitted that the document was genuine.

In an article published in 1966, Allen stated, One of the most significant documents of that period yet discovered was brought to light in 1965 by Paul Archiseman, a graduate student at Brigham Young University. This is a handwritten manuscript, apparently composed about 1833, and either written or dictated by Joseph Smith. It contains an account of the early experiences of the Mormon prophet and includes the story of the first vision.

Now, notice the word dictated is still being used at this time. However, the Tanners also note on page 146, upon more careful examination of this document, Dean C. Jesse has discovered that part of it is in the handwriting of Joseph Smith himself. Quote, This six-page account is the only history containing the actual handwriting of Joseph Smith, a fact that was not detected when this account was previously analyzed. The pages contain his account of the first vision.

This can be found in BYU Studies, summer of 1971, page 462, note number 78. Bill, I think we need to give kudos to Paul Cheeseman for writing this in the first place as a response, as a rebuttal to Gerald and Sandra Tanner, and it actually helped the cause of what the Tanners were trying to do. And I think we need to throw out kudos to Gerald and Sandra, who in 1965, the same year that this master's thesis was written, they published this strange account of the first vision. This is like being an archaeologist and finding something for the first time that nobody else had ever discovered and be able to release that to the public.

And so what a service the Tanners did in the case of the first vision. What I think is often not said enough is what we've been discussing in yesterday in today's program, and that is the reaction from the church itself when it comes to this 1832 account. Today, when you talk to most Latter-day Saints, they act like it's no big deal. So what if in his 1832 account he never mentions God the Father? He only mentions the Lord. He goes to inquire of the Lord about his sins being forgiven, not because of a revival that was taking place in the area of Palmyra, New York, as the 1838 account implies. He's told in the 1838 account not to join any of the churches, for they were all wrong, for their creeds were an abomination in God's sight. But even though Smith in the 1838 account acts as if that was news to him, the 1832 account says that Smith already knows that the various denominations are problematic. So we do see some conflicts here, but the way the essay tries to tell the story makes it sound like it's no problem at all.

But yet that's not the way the church acted in the early years when the 1832 account was coming to light. Thank you for listening. If you would like more information regarding Mormonism Research Ministry, we encourage you to visit our website at www.mrm.org where you can request our free newsletter, Mormonism Researched. We hope you will join us again as we look at another viewpoint on Mormonism. When sharing your faith with a Latter-day Saint, it helps to know what their church has taught on several basic topics. For this reason, Mormonism Research Ministry has provided its Crash Course Mormonism. Crash Course Mormonism includes concise articles highlighting what LDS leaders and church manuals have taught on issues that will probably come up in a typical conversation. You can find these informative articles at CrashCourseMormonism.com. That's CrashCourseMormonism.com