Gospel Topics Chapter 5 Howlett Part 1

Mormonism 101, a book by Mormonism Research Ministries, Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, has helped many who want to understand what separates Mormonism from the Christian faith. In 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. Welcome to 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. We continue our look at a book titled the LDS Gospel Topics Series, a scholarly engagement. This was a book that was published in late 2020, and as the title implies, it is a critique of what were known to be 13 original Gospel Topics essays that were posted on the official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. At the time, it was LDS.org.

Now that URL is ChurchofJesusChrist.org. It was edited by Matthew L. Harris and Newell G. Bringhurst. Today we are going to be looking at Chapter 5. Chapter 5 is titled The Cultural Work of the First Vision Accounts Essay, and this chapter was written by David J. Howlett. According to the bio of Mr. Howlett, on page 373, it says that Howlett is an eighth-generation member of the Community of Christ and serves as one of three volunteer World Church historians for the Church. And of course, the Community of Christ originally was known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Bill, I think those little bios are important because everybody has a bias. We all have world views, we all have presuppositions, and so that will be interesting to see how somebody from the Community of Christ is going to deal with the topic of the First Vision, which officially has held to the basic idea of the First Vision. Yeah, if you look at the Community of Christ website, as it's known now, you're going to find that though they may somewhat believe in it, it's almost like you don't have to. It's not that big of a deal with the Community of Christ.

Certainly not as big a deal as it is with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City. And I think Mr. Howlett emphasizes that as he begins his essay that is found on page 131. So he writes, in his last conference talk before his 2008 death, LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley returned to a subject of which he often spoke, Joseph Smith's 1820 Theophany near Palmyra, New York, widely known by Mormons as the First Vision. To his LDS audience, Hinckley exhorted, Only two years before this talk, Hinckley had written, And a decade before his final talk, Hinckley had written, Again and again, Hinckley referred to the First Vision as a foundational part of the LDS mythos that had to have happened as a historical event or else he suggested the LDS Church itself was a sham.

I think the importance of what was just cited out of this book cannot be underestimated. And you and I have talked about this many times, Eric, on this show and in our writings that Hinckley made it very clear, as is pointed out in the opening lines of this chapter, if the First Vision, as understood by the way the LDS Church is teaching it, was not in fact a historical event or something that Joseph Smith actually experienced, then everything springboarding from that story is obviously false. And as Hinckley brings out, the Church is a sham.

He used even stronger language than that, showing that it can't just be off on this story. This had to have actually happened to Joseph Smith. If not, then everything the LDS Church is telling us needs to just be taken with a grain of salt, and I would say not even taken seriously. We've talked about this before, but in Christianity we have what's called the resurrection of Jesus, and in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul says if you don't accept that or believe it or it didn't happen, then Christianity doesn't exist. And I think you're right, and Hinckley is right, because without the First Vision being a historical event, without the Book of Mormon being a historical event, those two events cannot be symbolic.

They cannot just be figurative. They have to be literal events, or Mormonism is just a feel-good religion, but it's not based in reality. Well, at the top of page 132, David Howlett makes this statement, which I think is absolutely correct. He says that, Hinckley surely raised the stakes held by LDS members vis-à-vis the First Vision.

I would have to agree with that statement, and so here's what we have. We have a Mormon president on numerous occasions showing how important the First Vision is, and I would have to include the way the LDS Church is teaching it today. And he's going to get into what the Church has historically taught regarding the First Vision, and how that understanding was kind of put into question based on some other things that were found in the 1960s.

But I don't want to get ahead of myself. Read that next paragraph on page 132, Eric. As Hinckley knew when he made his remarks, Smith's First Vision had been the subject of simmering controversies within and outside the LDS Church since the mid-1960s. Until the mid-20th century, LDS Church officials by and large acknowledged only one First Vision account authored by Smith. The officially recognized account, written in 1838 and later published in the LDS Church's newspaper in 1842, had been canonized in 1880 and became a foundational narrative for the Church by the early 20th century. Then, 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. Found in a then-restricted manuscript in the LDS Church historian's office, later archives, the 1832 account had been penned by Smith himself, unlike any other known account.

What's unfortunate is that Mr. Hallett does not name the individual, this undergraduate student. It was a man by the name of Paul, it looks like Cheeseman, I've heard some say it's pronounced Chesman, but it's C-H-E-E-S-M-A-N. He is the one that brought to light this 1832 account. And what's interesting is that Gerald and Sandra Tanner, in their book, Mormonism, Shadow, or Reality, mention the coming forth of what was known originally as the Strange Account. Now, when you read what the Tanners said about this, and then you read what the Mormon Church is trying to do with it, they say these harmonize.

I say they don't harmonize at all, and I'll explain why, but I think it would be important, Eric, if we read what the Tanners had to say about this Strange Account that's found on page 145 of Mormonism, Shadow, or Reality. It says, for years, the Mormon leaders have publicly maintained that Joseph Smith told only one story concerning the First Vision. Preston Nibley made this statement, quote, Joseph Smith lived a little more than 24 years after this first vision. During this time, he told but one story, end quote. Now, that's found in Joseph Smith the Prophet, dated 1944, page 30.

Joseph Smith told but one story, according to Preston Nibley, in this account. Goes on and says, at the very time that Preston Nibley made this statement, the Mormon leaders were suppressing at least two accounts of the First Vision, which were written prior to the account, which Joseph Smith published in the Times and Seasons. Levi Edgar Young, who was head of the Seven Presidents of Seventies in the Mormon Church, told Lamar Peterson that he had examined a quote unquote Strange Account of the First Vision and was told not to reveal what it contained. The following is from notes by Lamar Peterson of an interview with Levi Edgar Young, which was held on February 3, 1953.

Quote, A list of five questions was presented. Brother Young indicated some surprise at the nature of the questions, but said he heartily approved of them being asked, said they were important, fundamental, were being asked more by members of the church, and should be asked, said the church should have a committee available where answers to such questions could be obtained. He has quit going down with his own questions to Brother Joseph Fielding Smith, because he was laughed at and put off.

Let me stop you there. Joseph Fielding Smith at this time is the church historian. So this question comes up to a man like Joseph Fielding Smith, and according to these notes, we find that he was laughed at and put off. Why would he be laughed at and put off, especially in light of how the LDS Church is portraying this alleged Strange Account today?

Why would they do that? Now, does it sound to you, from what we've read so far, that the church is really excited about this 1832 account? Apparently Joseph Fielding Smith wasn't too excited about it.

He didn't seem all that interested. But what did the Tanners quote in the next paragraph? His curiosity was excited when reading in Robert's documentary history reference to documents from which these writings were compiled, asked to see them, told to get higher permission, obtained that permission, examined the documents, written, he thought, about 1837 or 1838, was told not to copy or tell what they contained, said it was a Strange Account of the First Vision, was put back in vault, remains unused, unknown. Was told not to copy or tell what they contained. Now the church today, when taking all the various accounts that are available, makes it appear as if there's no problem here.

It's nothing but a case of gaslighting. Back then, they knew they had a problem. They didn't want to put those out to the general membership. But yet today, the church, acknowledging that they can't ignore this any longer, have tried to make their people feel comfortable with these various accounts as if there's no problem whatsoever. But notice, back here on February 3rd, 1953, and as we just read, the following is from notes by Lamar Peterson of an interview with Levi Edgar Young. 1953, that doesn't seem to be the attitude that the leadership of the church has regarding this account that Joseph Smith wrote in 1832. And in tomorrow's show, we're going to talk a little bit more about what he wrote in 1832. as we look at another Viewpoint on Mormonism. You just listened to today's broadcast of Viewpoint on Mormonism. But did you know that you can hear previous shows at your convenience? The Viewpoint on Mormonism podcast is free on the internet and will help you learn more about the LDS religion. Feel free to listen on your computer or download to your favorite listening device. Just go to MRM.org and click on the right side where it says On Air. All of our shows are here, so visit MRM.org today. you