The First Vision and Continuing Revelation in Community of Christ

Lachlan Mackay

“There he had an experience with the divine.”[1] This description of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, as his conversion experience is often known today, comes from the orientation movie at Community of Christ’s Joseph Smith Historic Site in Nauvoo, Illinois. By the 1950s, the First Vision would become the foundational event of the faith for many members, although it did not start out that way.

When asked by Nauvoo visitors about the vague language in the movie’s description of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, I attempt to explain (in a way that’s not overwhelming) that Joseph left multiple accounts of the grove experience, that his accounts vary significantly in detail, and that although it is clear to me that Joseph had an experience in the grove, the specifics of that experience are not so clear. I share that in the past, many people joined the faith based on Joseph’s conversion experience as described in his 1838 account, rather than on any experience of their own. Anti-Mormons have wielded other versions of the First Vision as a weapon to discredit the faith of these believers and “save” them from so-called deceptions. For these reasons, Community of Christ used more encompassing language for the Nauvoo orientation movie, language that is uncomfortable for some who want a more detailed account of the First Vision. I make every effort to minimize the potential discomfort caused by discussing First Vision accounts while still sharing openly and honestly.

The newer Kirtland Temple orientation movie treats the First Vision differently. It is informed by Joseph’s 1832 account, the only one written in his hand, and shares that “Joseph . . . found a secluded grove near his home and poured out his heart in prayer. There he had a vision of Jesus Christ. This personal conversion experience set him on a path that led to the publication of the Book of Mormon, an additional scriptural witness to the Bible, and the founding of the Church of Christ in 1830.”[2]

Community of Christ chose to focus on the 1832 version of the First Vision because it is Joseph’s earliest-known account and is perhaps more accurate but also because we realized that the more expansive language used in the Nauvoo-site movie (“an experience with the divine”) was generating discomfort among visitors and too often becoming an unintended point of contention.

It seems that through at least 1840, most members of the church knew little or nothing of the First Vision. The Saints’ Herald (our denomination’s primary periodical) was first published in 1860, and references to the First Vision are scattered in its pages across the decades, particularly from 1865 to 1958. The centennial of the vision was the dominant focus of our 1920 general conference.[3] The First Vision’s role in the life of the church, though, was as part of the story rather than the story. Likely in response to Fawn Brodie’s 1945 publication of No Man Knows My History, Israel A. Smith (church president from 1946 to 1958, and grandson and staunch defender of Joseph Smith Jr.) elevated the role of the First Vision through the 1949 publication of a Community of Christ edition of Joseph Smith Tells His Own Story.[4] In 1951, this title was chosen as the first Community of Christ tract to be published in Spanish, a clear sign of the elevated status of the vision during Israel’s tenure.[5]

Also in the 1950s, Community of Christ began to tentatively engage in missionary outreach in Asia, and leaders become increasingly convinced that a message focused on Joseph Smith and the restoration of the one true Christian church would not serve the church well in cultures that were not traditionally Christian.[6] In a greatly oversimplified version of what happened next, church leaders took a step back, reexamined the faith’s core principles, and reformulated the message. In the following decades, the church shifted its focus to center more on Jesus and less on Joseph Smith. This process also resulted in reconnecting the First Vision with its earliest meaning—the story of Joseph’s conversion rather than the foundational event for Joseph’s call to restore the church.

In his 1980 article “Joseph Smith’s First Vision: An Analysis of Six Contemporary Accounts,” world church historian Richard Howard describes the evolving role of the First Vision this way:

Joseph’s First Vision could not have been the central reason for the decision of many to unite with the Latter Day Saint movement in the first decade of its existence. After all, it seems clear that that event, which from 1840 to the present has gradually become so important to so many Latter Day Saints, simply was not generally known to the membership during the first decade of the church’s life. Whatever the church’s reasons for being from 1830 to 1840, the First Vision was not among them as a conscious reality of vital significance to the members. By actions of the church and its leaders from 1842 on, that event has come to have a position of central importance in the literature, imagination, and theology of the various Latter Day Saint communities that have emerged from the original church.[7]

Howard’s article was presented at the 1977 John Whitmer Historical Association Conference before it was published in the first volume of Restoration Studies by the church’s Herald Publishing House, and it played a critical role in increasing awareness among RLDS members that there were multiple accounts of the vision with some significant variations in detail.

The 1832 account of the vision with the appearance of Jesus and passages like “I was crucifyed [sic] for the world” and “clothed in the glory of my Father” is particularly helpful as Community of Christ increasingly focuses on Christ.[8] This earliest account is gradually becoming a reminder that from the first stirrings of what would eventually grow into the church, Christ has been at our center. The First Vision is taking on other contemporary meanings as well.

In years past, Community of Christ had a program that brought members from around the world to historic church sites. The goals of this program were to introduce members to our history and strengthen their language skills. Previous conventional wisdom was that our mostly white, male, nineteenth-century, North American story would not speak to international members. My time working with this program challenged and even overturned that understanding. In many cases, our international members today are living our nineteenth-century story of poverty, oppression, and persecution, so they understand and connect even more quickly to our history than North American members do.

In 2004, I visited what is now known as the Sacred Grove with two program participants, both from nations in Africa. Andrew Bolton, later a Community of Christ apostle, was with us as well. It was raining, but we had umbrellas, and we slowly walked together through the trees without saying much. We stopped, several of us offered prayers, and when we made it back to the car, we talked about the meaning of the Sacred Grove. One of the two women made a comment that has stayed with me: “If God cared about a poor, uneducated farm boy, maybe God even cares about me, a poor African grandmother.”

At some level, I was troubled by the statement. The woman’s words suggested that she doubted her worth in the eyes of God. But they also illustrated ways that the First Vision is meaningful to contemporary Community of Christ members. The vision draws together three of our Enduring Principles: continuing revelation, the worth of all persons, and all are called (to be disciples of Christ). If God can work through an impoverished and uneducated teenager, then God can work through anyone. God still speaks. All are of worth. All are called. That is the message of the First Vision today.

Continuing Revelation

Visions are one form of revelation, but Community of Christ members today more often encounter God through other revelatory forms, including the addition of sections to the Doctrine and Covenants. The understanding that God reveals God’s divine will today, as God did in the past, is an essential element of Community of Christ. God still speaks. This concept is expressed in our Enduring Principle of Continuing Revelation, and it is also a basic belief of the church: “We affirm the Living God is ever self-revealing. God is revealed to the world in the testimony of Israel, and above all in Jesus Christ. By the Holy Spirit we continue to hear God speaking today. The church is called to listen together for what the Spirit is saying and then faithfully respond.”[9] Formally, this means adding new sections to the Doctrine and Covenants. The “testing” of a new section of the Doctrine and Covenants involves the discernment of different priesthood orders and quorums as well as meetings of nonpriesthood and youth. A final decision is made by the World Conference delegates. However, God’s self-revealing is much bigger than this and touches members and friends as they grow in following Jesus, the Peaceful One.

God’s revelation is ongoing, and we believe the revelatory process is conceptual (the thoughts are inspired, but the word choice is not) rather than plenary (each word is inspired and without error). As a result, we do not ascribe to a dictation theory of revelation—that the writer’s only role is to apply God’s words to paper. The humanity of the prophetic figure conveying revelation cannot be separated from the process. Joseph Smith Jr.’s willingness to edit his revelatory texts suggests he was comfortable, at least on some level, with the idea that revelation was conceptual. When reflecting on the Doctrine and Covenants, apostle Dale Luffman summarized our perspective on revelation this way: “Community of Christ does not believe revelation is verbal, literal, or inerrant. Scripture is rather viewed as the written testimony of God’s interaction with creation, inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is not the words of a written text that we follow but the God who inspires those words.”[10]

Building on the church’s 1830s emphasis on common consent, Community of Christ members in recent decades have been invited to participate in the prophetic task of receiving revelation. In a World Conference address to the church given soon after his 1996 ordination as prophet-president, W. Grant McMurray said, “We need to talk, my friends, about the way we have begun to move from our identity as a people with a prophet to our calling as a prophetic people.”[11] The conversation continued in 2004: “As a prophetic people you are called, under the direction of the spiritual authorities and with the common consent of the people, to discern the divine will for your own time and in the places where you serve. You live in a world with new challenges, and that world will require new forms of ministry” (CofChrist Doctrine and Covenants 162:2c). President Stephen M. Veazey picked up the theme in 2007: “God is calling for a prophetic community to emerge, drawn from the nations of the world, that is characterized by uncommon devotion to the compassion and peace of God revealed in Jesus Christ” (CofChrist Doctrine and Covenants 163:11a). In an increasingly complex and challenging world, Community of Christ strives to be not only a people with a prophet but also a prophetic people.

In summary, Joseph Smith Jr.’s conversion experience, now known as the First Vision, was relatively unknown in the earliest years of Community of Christ. Awareness of and emphasis on this theophany grew slowly in the second half of the nineteenth century, and the 1920 RLDS general conference used the vision as its central theme. By the 1950s, the First Vision had become the founding event of the church. The church’s movement toward international expansion, which started in the 1950s, generated a growing emphasis on Jesus over Joseph, and the First Vision began to transition back to its original role in the life of the church as the story of Joseph’s conversion. Today the First Vision is also meaningful to Community of Christ members as a reminder of the worth of all persons, that all are called to be disciples of Christ and that revelation continues. Visions are one kind of revelation, and continuing revelation is both a core value and a basic belief in Community of Christ. Revelation is understood to be conceptual rather than plenary, and in recent decades the church has increased its emphasis on transitioning from a people with a prophet to a prophetic people.

The First Vision in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Keith J. Wilson

As a fifteen-year-old member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I can vividly remember my earliest formal encounter with the First Vision. My scoutmaster and I were teaching my best friend about the Restoration of the gospel. After outlining the foundational events of the beginning of the church, my leader turned to me and invited me to share my personal feelings about these happenings. I began by sharing my thoughts on Joseph Smith and the First Vision. For the first time in my young life, I deeply believed and felt the truthfulness of that event. This experience commenced my lifelong devotion to this seminal Restoration vision.

The gospel of Jesus Christ has always embraced visions as a form of God’s communication with humankind. This assertion is more than evident in the scriptures. During Old Testament times, the Lord set the standard for visions when he declared, “If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision” (Numbers 12:6). Accordingly, the scriptures confirm that most prophets received visions in their leadership roles. Moses, Isaiah, Elijah, and Jeremiah all received significant visions. This pattern continued in the New Testament with such notables as Stephen and John the Revelator. The Book of Mormon begins with Lehi’s vision and ends with Moroni’s visions of the latter days. In addition, the latter-day Restoration began with Joseph Smith’s seminal First Vision, and the period was then punctuated with multiple visionary events, such as the vision of the three degrees of glory and the vision of the spirit world (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 76 and 138, respectively).

All in all, visions are a central doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In 1842, Joseph Smith penned the Wentworth Letter to a Chicago newspaper editor. In a creedal-like manner, Joseph declared in the seventh doctrinal stanza of that letter, “We believe in the gift of tongues, prophesy, revelations, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues and so forth” (LDS Articles of Faith 1:7; emphasis added). Thus, in a modern setting, the founding Prophet of the Restoration formalized the significance of visions in our faith. But what exactly is a “vision”? And what distinguishes it from other forms of revelation? The Encyclopedia of Mormonism describes a vision as “a visual mode of divine communication in contrast with hearing words spoken or receiving impressions to the mind.”[12] Ever since the formative days of the Church of Jesus Christ, visions have played a prominent role in the church’s beliefs.

While the early history of our faith is replete with visionary accounts, no vision stands larger for us than the quintessential First Vision, which Joseph received around the year 1820. The history and provenance of the First Vision merit closer introspection. Perhaps the First Vision can be used as a template for our perceptions of the doctrine of latter-day visions.

When the teenage Joseph first experienced the vision, he was shocked by the brusque reception he received from outsiders. Joseph Smith recalled his surprise when he first related this vision to a Methodist minister. In Joseph’s words, the preacher responded that “[the vision] was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in [those] days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles” (LDS Joseph Smith—History 1:21). This experience so unnerved the young boy Prophet that he seemed to retract his epiphany from public view and thereafter focused solely on tangible, Restoration evidences like the Book of Mormon. In the decade that followed, Joseph published the Book of Mormon and organized the church. With the foundational elements in place in 1832, Joseph broke his silence and recorded his earliest written account of the First Vision. Three more directly dictated accounts followed in 1835, 1838, and 1842. Other secondary tellings of the vision surfaced, but these four accounts constitute the personally dictated memoirs of the First Vision.

So how did the historical development of the First Vision proceed? And what elevated the 1838 account in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? As mentioned previously, Joseph withdrew his experience from public scrutiny after the minister openly berated him. For more than a decade, Joseph maintained his self-imposed silence. Then some twelve years later, in 1832, Joseph quietly penned his initial remembrance of the First Vision. This account was relatively short; it projected the basic outline of the vision, focusing primarily on his standing before God. Joseph did not release this text to the public, and it was obscured in a private record book until 1965, when it was first published.[13] Three years after this initial 1832 account was drafted, in 1835, Joseph recorded a very similar iteration of the First Vision. This account was also short and light on details. Like the 1832 rendition, it was also filed away in private archival holdings and were unknown until the 1960s.

After the Saints departed from Kirtland and relocated to frontier Missouri, they faced continued resistance and persecutions. In 1838, some eighteen years following the First Vision, Joseph felt compelled to openly set the record straight. His introduction to the notable 1838 account began with “Owing to the many reports which have been put into circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons, in relation to the rise and the progress of the Church, . . . I have been induced to write this history, to put all inquiries after truth in possession of the facts” (LDS Joseph Smith—History 1:1). Joseph then proceeded to chronicle a rather detailed account beginning with the First Vision and continuing through to the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood in 1829. This is the account of the First Vision that appears today in scripture used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The last of the four accounts was dictated in 1842, when Joseph Smith responded to a newspaper editor, John Wentworth. Wentworth never put the account in print, but Joseph published this version in the Times and Seasons on March 1, 1844. This was the first published account of the vision in the United States, and while it was fairly brief, it would have been the description that most Nauvoo members would have known at the time. Of these four extant accounts, only two were published in the early church. Since the 1842 account was published first, how did the 1838 account supplant the 1842 account and become the official First Vision version of the Latter-day Saints?

Joseph dictated the 1838 account to his secretary, George Robinson, beginning in April 1838. After five days of transcribing and editing, they had completed eight manuscript pages of text, which included the description of the First Vision.[14] Their work was suspended shortly after they began, due to the 1838 Missouri hostilities and Joseph’s imprisonment. The following June, in 1839, with the help of James Mulholland, Joseph was able to finish the account. In comparison with the other three dictated versions, the 1838 recitation was couched in more institutional terms. In previous accounts, Joseph had focused more on his personal standing before God, but in this telling, he concentrated on his struggles of knowing which church to join and dealing with all the opposition that had suddenly surfaced. Also, the 1838 account was written with the intent to publish it as the first part of an intended multivolume History of the Church. Thus, it was edited and presented in the context of the larger restoration of all things.

Consequently, Joseph was inclined to share this account more openly with others. One such person was a trusted friend, Orson Pratt. In December 1839, while Joseph was en route to Washington to plead the cause of the Saints, he met with Orson in Philadelphia, where they remained for eight days. Later, when Orson described his understanding of the First Vision, he emphatically stated that he had heard it “as it came from [Joseph’s] own mouth.”[15]

Later that same year, while proselyting in Scotland, Orson published his first missionary tract, titled A[n] Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions. Included in that thirty-one-page pamphlet was the first printed version of the 1838 First Vision account. Orson was so enamored with his missionary tract that, when he returned from Scotland in 1841, he had it printed in New York and distributed in Nauvoo. The demand for Interesting Account prompted Orson to print two more editions in New York as well as subsequent editions in England (1848), Germany (1852), France (1850), Australia (1851), Denmark (1851), and Holland (1865).[16] Orson was so relentless in his preaching and promoting of the First Vision that one historian referred to him as the “Defender of the First Vision.”[17] Also noteworthy is that Orson was the first person to refer to this seminal event as “the First Vision.”[18]

Later, at the 1880 church general conference, a sixty-nine-year-old Pratt watched as the 1838 account of the First Vision was canonized in church scripture as part of the Pearl of Great Price. Orson must have felt great pride that October day knowing that his love for and emphasis on the First Vision had largely sparked the church’s endorsement of the miracle’s account.

The First Vision after Canonization

Shortly before the First Vision was canonized, two Latter-day Saint artists incorporated the event into their trades. C. C. A. Christensen produced a traveling art show of vignettes from early church history in which the First Vision was prominently depicted, and George Manwaring, perhaps building on Christensen’s art display, composed the well-known hymn “Oh, How Lovely Was the Morning.” These expressions combined with the canonization to significantly raise the collective consciousness of the First Vision in the church. After the death of Orson Pratt, President George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency took up the First Vision cause and repeatedly made it the center point of his sermons. He was subsequently joined in this effort by church historian B. H. Roberts, who in 1893 systematized the vision by citing five reasons for its importance. Thus, the stage was set doctrinally for a major reshaping of church identity.

At the turn of the century, the church was locked in a struggle for survival with the federal government over the doctrine of polygamy. Joseph F. Smith, a lineal descendant of Joseph Smith’s brother Hyrum, had been called before Congress in 1904 to pledge his word that the Latter-day Saints would no longer practice polygamy. When Joseph F. returned to Utah, he realized that the Saints would need to focus on the Prophet’s first revelation instead of his last[19] and commenced a multifaceted program to embed the vision more prominently into the minds and beliefs of the members. First, he encouraged the church to purchase the traditional Palmyra site of the vision. Additionally, the church produced a new missionary pamphlet, Joseph Smith Tells His Own Story. And finally, he preached repeatedly on the “the most important event in the history of the world excepting only the revelation of Godhood in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ.”[20] As a fitting tribute to Joseph F. Smith’s emphasis, two years after his death, in 1920, the church celebrated the centennial of the First Vision. General conference, a commemorative cantata, a special edition of the Improvement Era, and numerous pageants all expressed the church’s deep convictions of the First Vision. This seminal event was no longer just a doctrinal mainstay but a cultural keystone as well.

Meanwhile, in the larger Christian milieu, Charles Darwin, higher biblical criticism, and the Scopes Trial had all served notice that prevailing Christianity was passé. This enlightened tidal wave also affected the church through its flagship academy, Brigham Young University. A group of academics openly promulgated that the First Vision should not be treated as historical fact but instead should be viewed as a mental suggestion without an objective reality.[21] The church responded a few years later, in 1938, when J. Reuben Clark Jr., a member of the First Presidency, announced that all teachers in the church’s educational system had to affirm two cardinal truths: “First—that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” . . . and second that “the Father and the Son actually and in truth and very deed appeared to the Prophet Joseph in a vision in the woods.”[22] With this address, the church positioned this fundamental tenet of the Restoration as a lightning rod for the faithful.

Seven years later, this lightning rod received its first major strike when Fawn Brodie published her highly critical book, No Man Knows My History. In her diatribe, she psychoanalyzed Joseph Smith with statements like “Dream images came easily to this youth, whose imagination was as untrammeled as the whole West.”[23] Church president David O. McKay, Brodie’s uncle, did not take her assault on Joseph’s First Vision lightly. He subsequently challenged the church membership to “proclaim . . . that the Church is divinely established by the appearance of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ to the Prophet Joseph Smith.”[24]

The church accepted President McKay’s challenge and included the First Vision in the first missionary discussions, in general conference talks, and in other church materials. In the decade that followed (1950–60), the church saw large increases in its membership. When the church celebrated its sesquicentennial in 1980, a special children’s program was performed in every local congregation. The script for the presentation featured a family asking their children what they learned from the First Vision. It was a fitting celebration of the one-hundred-year rise in the prominence of the First Vision. As one historian summarized the First Vision’s trajectory, “It was indeed not just Joseph Smith’s theophany, but [had become] the great Mormon theophany.”[25]

In more recent times, the church has steadfastly anchored itself to the First Vision. President Gordon B. Hinckley declared emphatically, “We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith.” He continued, “Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.”[26] This statement aptly describes today how members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints countenance the importance of the First Vision.

Response to Keith J. Wilson

Keith’s devotion to the Prophet Joseph Smith and the First Vision is evident in the spirit in which he writes. I found his overview of the rise of the First Vision in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be both fascinating and helpful. His chapter has solved for me an enduring mystery: How could the First Vision play such very different roles in two communities that have in common the fourteen years from the organization of the church to Joseph’s death? Although the vision clearly did not play a central role in the church by 1844, there were several published and widely available accounts of the vision before the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

What happened in the years that followed? The significance of the First Vision rose and fell in Community of Christ. That does not seem to have been the case for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with President Hinckley eventually tying the truth or falsehood of the church to the validity of the First Vision.

Keith touched on several points that clarify both churches’ journeys with the First Vision. The first point relates to the context of the 1838 account. While earlier accounts focused on God forgiving Joseph’s sins and on Joseph’s conversion experience, the 1838 account focuses on how wrong existing churches were, with their abominable creeds and corrupt professors (see Joseph Smith—History 1:19). What was different by the late 1830s? By this time, the church’s conflict with its “Christian” neighbors was growing and would eventually result in the extermination of the Latter-day Saints from Missouri. The 1838 account of the vision reflects Joseph’s response to this conflict.

Perhaps the most critical points in understanding the different role the First Vision would come to play in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in comparison with Community of Christ are, first, Orson Pratt’s passion for sharing the vision and, second, the related 1880 canonization of the 1838 account. This shift from history to scripture is very difficult to undo and significantly elevated the trajectory of the vision in the life of the church.

I appreciate Keith’s candor in linking Joseph F. Smith’s early twentieth-century emphasis on the First Vision to the need to establish a new pillar of identity to replace the discarded focus on plural marriage. Perhaps the most surprising revelation from this joint writing project is Fawn Brodie’s likely role in causing both churches to further emphasize the vision in the mid-twentieth century.

I am concerned that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ continued emphasis on the 1838 account of the First Vision is setting up members for a faith crisis because I can’t forget my discussion with angry or distraught historic site visitors and friends who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ. Information about earlier accounts of the vision with significantly different details is simply too widely available to ignore and attempting to do so leads to the sense among some believers that their church leaders have deceived them. The Gospel Topics essay “First Vision Accounts” could be an important corrective, but it is not easily found online by those who are not already aware of its existence.

Although the topic in question was different at the time (Joseph Smith and polygamy versus First Vision accounts), well-meaning Community of Christ leaders have found themselves in similar positions in generations past with similar results. Please learn from our mistake.

Response to Lachlan Mackay

To be sure, Community of Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have much more in common through our Restoration roots than we have differences. Both faiths were birthed through the Prophet Joseph Smith’s inquisitiveness, both are devoutly Christ centered, both accept an open canon with ongoing revelation, and both value the concept of Zion or a Christ-centered community. Openly acknowledging our many commonalities, however, does not mean that we no longer have any points of divergence in our faith traditions. In the last 175 years, we have differed over polygamy, prophetic succession, and original church properties—to name a few.

The doctrine of the First Vision, however, presents a unique case study in the history of our two faiths. This seminal event was fully embraced by both churches for one hundred years. Then in about 1960, Community of Christ gradually adopted a more cautious interpretation of the First Vision, which eventuated in its current position that the event really should not be considered a “first vision” as much as a young man’s personal, spiritual experience. In Lachlan’s words, it is no longer plenary as much as it is simply personalized. Meanwhile, for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the First Vision has become more and more the epicenter of the Restoration. In 1998, church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared, “Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. . . . Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this [vision].”[27] So what caused this stark divergence between our two Restoration faiths? As cited by Lachlan, the First Vision was vibrant in the RLDS Church up until 1952. President Israel Smith took great ownership of his grandfather’s vision. But from the 1960s onward, new progressive leaders such as Maurice Draper, Clifford Cole, and Charles Neff were placed in the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles. These leaders had doubts about the validity of Joseph’s experiences.[28] Coinciding with societal pressures of the times, they began to redirect the Church away from the distinctives of the Restoration and back toward a more traditional Christian orientation. Then in 1965 a titanic doctrinal shift occurred when RLDS scholar Robert Flanders published the book Kingdom on the Mississippi, which, among other things, demonstrated that Joseph practiced polygamy. From this point forward, the RLDS leadership increasingly adopted the mantra “We worship Jesus, not Joseph.”

In 1980, the RLDS Church made an additional shift in emphasis and interpretation of Joseph Smith’s First Vision when church historian Richard Howard published an article in which he examined the multiple accounts of Smith’s theophany. Howard opined that the First Vision was not the foundational event of the Restoration and that it had been manufactured or “imagined” by subsequent leaders.[29] Thus, the First Vision for the church has become just a religious experience for a young boy who was concerned about his standing before God.

For The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the upward trajectory of the First Vision since 1950 has only become more pronounced. In the early sixties, the First Vision became the centerpiece of missionary materials. When multiple accounts of the First Vision began to receive attention in the 1960s, apologetic scholars belonging to the church jumped to its defense. Scores of books and articles in both scholarly and church venues have been published over the past fifty years defending the credibility of the First Vision.[30] The apex of this defense perhaps occurred in 2016 when the church published an online defense of the First Vision under the title “First Vision Accounts.”[31] Some four years later, as the church commemorated the two hundredth anniversary of the First Vision, President Russell M. Nelson announced a new church proclamation, just the sixth in the organization’s two-hundred-year history. This official proclamation centered on the church’s restored nature and the faith’s beginnings with the First Vision. The document reads in part, “In humility, we declare that in answer to his prayer, God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph and inaugurated the ‘restitution of all things’ (Acts 3:21) as foretold in the Bible. In this vision, he learned that following the death of the original Apostles, Christ’s New Testament Church was lost from the earth. Joseph would be instrumental in its return.”[32]

For The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the First Vision is a virtual treasure trove of doctrinal truths. Most significant of these is the firsthand witness that Jesus is the Christ and the Savior of the world. Not far behind is the reality of a Heavenly Father who works in tandem with his Son. Add to these the fact that God has restored the fullness of his gospel and has organized a church here upon this earth. Central to this church is the doctrine that God leads his work directly through a prophet.

In addition to many institutional truths, the First Vision circumscribes many personal truths as well. Preeminent among these is that the Savior truly saves each individual. In addition, the fact that God hears and answers personal prayers is verified. Add to this the truth that Satan is real and that he seeks to thwart righteousness. And the list goes on and on. In short, the First Vision has become the church’s doctrinal doorway to finding Christ both institutionally and personally.

When viewed simultaneously, Community of Christ’s and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ views of the foundational doctrine of the First Vision have grown further apart. We do have much in common. But a common view of the First Vision is no longer one of those areas.

Conclusion

The role of the First Vision in the life of both The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Community of Christ has evolved through the years. Relatively unknown in the earliest years of the church, the First Vision became foundational for both faiths up until the 1950s. Over the last fifty years, Community of Christ has gravitated to the 1832 account of the vision, and the vision is now primarily viewed as an account of Joseph Smith Jr.’s personal conversion experience. Additionally, the vision is also meaningful to Community of Christ members as a reminder of the worth of all persons, that all are called to be disciples of Christ, and that revelation continues. Continuing revelation is a Community of Christ core value. Revelation is understood to be conceptual, and there is a growing emphasis on becoming a prophetic people.

In contrast, for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the most detailed First Vision account of 1838 has become a central tenant of the Restoration. This account, which was first canonized in 1880, has grown more and more prominent in the church since then. In recent years, the Church of Jesus Christ has acknowledged, published, and blended all four First Vision accounts; nevertheless, the 1838 account has remained the backbone of the church’s message.

The unvarnished issue between our two Restoration faiths is much larger than just a divergence concerning the First Vision over the last seventy years. The issue is really centered in whether Joseph Smith’s revelations are accepted as if dictated by God to him or if they are understood to be filtered through the humanity or frailties of the boy prophet. On the day that Joseph Smith organized the latter-day church, he recorded the Lord as declaring, “Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all [Joseph Smith’s] words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them” (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 21:4; CofChrist Doctrine and Covenants 19:2a). Later Joseph also revealed that the latter-day revelations were given unto the Lord’s servants in their language and weakness (see LDS Doctrine and Covenants 1:24; CofChrist Doctrine and Covenants 1:5a). The Church of Jesus Christ believes they have embraced the path back to Jesus Christ that Joseph Smith revealed in the restoration of all things, while Community of Christ believes they are called to be both a people with a prophet and a prophetic people as they strive to continue moving toward Jesus, the Peaceful One. Both of our faiths are centered on Jesus Christ, but as reflected in our understandings of the First Vision, our doctrines have diverged rather decisively.

Notes

[1] Journey of the Saints: Nauvoo (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 2009), DVD.

[2] Journey of the Saints.

[3] “1820–1920 Centennial Program,” Saints’ Herald, March 24, 1920, 265.

[4] “Joseph Smith Tells His Own Story,” Saints’ Herald, July 18, 1949, 691.

[5] “José Smith relata su propia historia,” Saints’ Herald, October 15, 1951, 1008.

[6] For more details, see Matthew Bolton, Apostle of the Poor: The Life and Work of Missionary and Humanitarian Charles D. Neff (Independence, MO: John Whitmer Books, 2005).

[7] Richard P. Howard, “Joseph Smith’s First Vision: An Analysis of Six Contemporary Accounts,” Restoration Studies 1 (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1980), 96.

[8] “History, circa Summer 1832,” p. 3, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/3.

[9] Anthony J. Chvala-Smith, ed., Exploring Community of Christ Basic Beliefs: A Commentary (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 2020), 127.

[10] Dale Luffman, Commentary on the Community of Christ Doctrine and Covenants (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 2019), 1:10.

[11] W. Grant McMurray, “A Prophetic People,” Saints’ Herald, June 1996, 226.

[12] Allen E. Bergin, “Vision,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1991), 4:1511.

[13] Paul R. Cheesman, “An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith’s Early Visions,” (master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1965), 126.

[14] “History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” p. 1–3, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834/1; see also Dean C. Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2002), 226.

[15] Orson Pratt, in Journal of Discourses (London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1854–86), 7:220.

[16] Milton Backman Jr., “Defender of the First Vision,” in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: New York (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1992), 38; see also Stephen Harper, First Vision: Memory and Origins (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 61.

[17] Backman, “Defender of the First Vision,” 33.

[18] Stephen Harper, “Raising the Stakes,” BYU Studies Quarterly 59, no. 2 (2020): 27.

[19] Kathleen Flake, The Politics of the American Religious Identity: The Seating of Senator Reed Smoot (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2004), 109–37.

[20] John Henry Evans, One Hundred Years of Mormonism (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1905), 18.

[21] “Report of Horace Cummings to General Church Board,” quoted in Brigham Young University: The First One Hundred Years (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1975), 1:423.

[22] J. Reuben Clark Jr., “The Charted Course of the Church in Education” (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1992), 2, https://www.ChurchofJesusChrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32709_eng.pdf.

[23] Fawn McKay Brodie, No Man Knows My History (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1945), 25.

[24] David O McKay, in Conference Report, April 1954, 25.

[25] James B. Allen, “Emergence of a Fundamental: The Expanding Role of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” in Exploring the First Vision (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2012), 251.

[26] Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith,” Ensign, November 2002, 80.

[27] Gordon B. Hinckley, “What Are People Asking about Us?,” Ensign, November 1998, 71.

[28] Clifford A. Cole, “An Oral History Memoir” (unpublished manuscript, 1985), Community of Christ Archives, 4–5; see also Bolton, Charles D. Neff, 23.

[29] Howard, “Joseph Smith’s First Vision: An Analysis,” 96.

[30] See James B. Allen, “Eight Contemporary Accounts of the First Vision—What Do We Learn from Them?” Improvement Era 73 (1970): 4–13; Richard L. Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s Testimony of the First Vision,” Ensign, April 1996, 10–21; Milton V. Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision: The First Vision in Its Historical Context, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1971); Steven C. Harper, Joseph Smith’s First Vision: A Guide to the Historical Accounts (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2012).

[31] “First Vision Accounts,” Gospel Topics Essays, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[32] “The Restoration of the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: A Bicentennial Proclamation to the World,” ChurchofJesusChrist.org.