Review

Title: Joseph Smith and his First Vision: Context, Place, and Meaning
Editors: Alexander L. Baugh, Steven C. Harper, Brent M. Rogers, and Benjamin C. Pykles
Publisher: BYU Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book
Genre: Inspirational, History
Year Published: 2021
Number of Pages: 289
Binding: Hardcover or Kindle
ISBN13: 978-1-9503-0408-0
Price: $27.99 (hard)

Reviewed by Richard Packham for the Association for Mormon Letters

The subtitle of Joseph Smith and his First Vision (hereafter ‘JS&FV’) is “Context, Place, and Meaning.” The book is a collection of fourteen talks and papers that were presented at the twelfth “Church History Symposium” co-sponsored by Brigham Young University and the LDS Church History Department.  The theme of the 2020 symposium was to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the 1820 “First Vision,” which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints views as the beginning of the “restoration” of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith.

JS&FV is clearly directed to members of the LDS Church and no one else. (Full disclosure: I am a former member of the church.) The narrow audience is obvious, since each talk or essay clearly assumes, without saying so, that the reader believes certain LDS claims as fact: Joseph Smith did see God and Jesus in 1820, and they did speak to him; Smith was a true prophet of God; the Church is the only true Church; the present president of the Church is also a prophet. All of the fourteen articles assume these as facts, requiring no defense or further evidence. The authors of the essays are all closely connected to the Church, either through Brigham Young University or the Church history department. The first chapter in the book is the keynote address of the symposium by President Dallin Oaks of the Church’s First Presidency.

Over the years, many books and articles have been written about the First Vision accounts, and many of them are cited in the articles in JS&FV. Since there is not space in this review to comment on every essay in JS&FV, I will mention only those with new or unfamiliar material.

Sheri Dew’s contribution is titled “Joseph Smith and the Problem of Loneliness.” Dew has for many years been in charge of the Church’s Deseret Book Company. It is not clear from her article what loneliness has to do with the First Vision, nor does she make clear how Smith’s loneliness was unusual. She makes one remarkable statement about Smith’s production of the Book of Mormon, which Smith claimed to be (as she says) “the most correct of any book on earth.” She writes that she is amazed that Smith produced it without making any corrections or going back over it to check for repetition; that the first draft was faultless (since it was produced with divine help). Dew seems unaware that almost four thousand corrections have been made in subsequent editions. (See Tanner, 3913 Changes in the Book of Mormon.) Dew also seems to ignore the many wordy passages and instances of “editing on the fly” (quick corrections made with words like “or, in other words…”) and gives no hint as to how she sees the Book of Mormon as having anything to do with Smith’s supposed loneliness, or even his First Vision.

Richard Lyman Bushman’s article, “The First Vision in 2020,” describes the important place the First Vision holds in the present-day Church. He acknowledges that nine slightly differing versions of the account are now known but explains that they indicate Smith’s changing understanding of the vision. He also acknowledges that during the first decade of the Church’s existence, the general membership of the Church had never heard of the vision. He gives no satisfactory explanation of why, if it was so important, it was in effect kept so secret for so many years. He does not mention that Smith himself, in a draft history of the Church written and published in 1834, specifically says that Mormonism began with the 1823 appearance of the angel telling him of the ancient plates from which Smith would produce the Book of Mormon. He avoids mentioning that Brigham Young, as late as 1855, seemed unaware of the First Vision as now canonized in the Pearl of Great Price (JS-Hist 1, the 1838 version). Hugh Nibley acknowledged this in 1961 (Improvement Era, Nov. 1961, p 868).

Rachel Cope’s article portrays the general background of revivalist religion that permeated that area of New York at the time of the First Vision. She recounts many instances of people other than Smith having visions of Christ or God or angels around the same time. She implies that they were genuine, not hallucinations, which seems a problem: it makes Smith’s vision not so special. But if the others’ visions were not authentic, what is it that makes Smith’s recognizable as authentic? She does not say whether those other visionaries suffered persecution for their claims, as Smith claimed he had (in the canonized version).

Two articles, one by Richard E. Bennett and one by Mark L. Staker and Donald L. Enders, document the many revival meetings and fervent religious conversions that took place at the time.  This counters an early criticism claiming that there was no history of any local revival in 1820 as recounted in the canonized account of the First Vision.

Several of the JS&FV contributors discuss the fact that the various accounts of the First Vision differ in major ways. They offer several explanations for the differences: Smith’s understanding of it developed over time; the different versions were tailored to the persons to whom they were directed; they are compared to the four canonical New Testament Gospels, which also frequently contradict each other.

Gary L. Boatright’s essay, “The Sacred Grove: Its History, Preservation, and Regeneration,” is a history of the grove itself where Joseph Smith’s vision occurred. As soon as the grove was acquired by the Church faithful Saints came to be in the sacred place where Smith had seen God. Over the years the many visitors had a destructive effect on the grove. The Church, attempting to accommodate the many visitors, neglected the needs of the trees and natural flora in order to allow the throngs of devout visitors. The grove was dying. Only in recent years was the care turned over to people knowledgeable in forest health. I realized the importance of the grove in Saint’s testimony years ago when a faithful Saint told me that he had sometimes doubted Smith’s account, but after he had seen the grove himself, he knew that the account was true.

Lisa Olsen Tait’s contribution deals with a remarkable Mormon woman of the early twentieth century, Susa Young Gates. Gates was one of the leading women in the Church at that time and was a staunch feminist. She also had a special love for the First Vision and frequently wrote about it. She asserted that the First Vision (the canonized version, since no other was known generally at the time) was especially important for women. Neither Tait nor Gates explains, so far as I can tell, exactly why specifically the First Vision has anything to do with women’s position in the world or the Church.

The last article in this compilation, by Casey Paul Griffiths, is “The First Vision Goes to The Movies,” chronicling the many cinematic portrayals of the event. Almost all of these films were commissioned by the Church to be used for instructional and missionary purposes. The filmmakers always struggled with the question of how (or whether) to portray the divine figures, and after other versions of the vision became known, how (and whether) to include elements from those formerly unknown versions.

Every article in Joseph Smith and his First Vision: Context, Place, and Meaning is well documented, with copious end-notes, and Saints who want a more complete understanding of the First Vision will find this volume useful and inspiring.