Dating of Joseph's First Vision Letter Book Account

[el-asherah]

This is a companion post to “Oliver Cowdery Version: Gold Plate Vision was the First Vision?” see
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1591

The first Joseph Smith account of the Grove Vision is in the Kirtland letter book. Yes, this is the version Joseph F. Smith cut out of the letter book and hide in his safe because the account didn't match the accepted narrative. This account was hidden and only recently made publicly available.

The letter book account is undated. The church dates this account to 1832. This dating has always been a head scratcher to me, since the dating seems to be out of order with Joseph's evolving theology.

Specifically, in Oliver's 1834 history the Gold Plate Vision was the First Vision, and yet Joseph never corrected the confusion even though this false narrative was widely circulated by the “Messenger and Advocate” in Kirtland in 1834. Why would this be the case if Joseph knew the Grove Vision story in 1832? maybe the Grove Vision story wasn't known to Joseph in 1834?

The church admits http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... cal-)intro

“In the early 1830s, when this history was written, it appears that JS had not broadcast the details of his first vision of Deity. The history of the church, as it was then generally understood, began with the gold plates. John Whitmer mentioned in his history “the commencement of the church history commencing at the time of the finding of the plates” ,

In other words no one seems to know about the Grove Vision and everyone accepted what got the ball rolling was the Gold Plate Vision, until when? The letter book account of the Grove Vision was also never publicly known about.


The first account of the Grove Vision is in the Kirtland letter book starts here http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... erbook-1/7

The Kirtland letter book #1 can be seen here http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... tterbook-1

The format of the letter book is 3 blank pages, an index page (a table of contents, unnumbered, appears to be an insert on different kind of paper), a blank page, the JS history pages numbering 1-6, and then letters numbering 1,2,3.......  The Joseph history section and the letter section page numbers restart at 1.

• The Joseph Smith history account is undated

• The church claims the account is written in Joseph's own handwriting and scribe Frederick G. Williams.
  Williams did not start acting as a scribe until Feb 1832, and moved to Far West and was excommunicated in 1837.

• It is not clear if the Joseph Smith history in the letter book was a copy, or was the original. The church's historian's opinion seems to weigh towards an original.

• The history abruptly ends

The church's arguments for the historical 1832 dating of the Joseph Smith letterbook history are here http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... ical-intro

Summarizing the church's key points for the 1832 dating of the Joseph Smith history:

• 1. The book was first used to record Joseph's history in 1832, later re-purposed to record letters in chronological order starting in late 1832. Joseph's history appears on pages preceding the first letters.

• 2. Williams claims “I commencd writing for Joseph Smith Jr July 20th 1832 as may be seen by S Rigdon permission dated as above.”

• 3. The changing lexicon regarding the priesthood, the Joseph Smith history refers to the first (lesser) priesthood as the “holy priesthood”, but after the Sept 1832 priesthood revelation the term “holy” only referred to the higher priesthood.

• 4. Williams appointment as a scribe and the priesthood revelation lexicon change place the date between July 1832 to Sept 1832.

That is it! I'm not trying to create a strawman. If anybody thinks I misrepresented the church's position please let me know.


An alternative hypothesis is that the letter book was first used to record letters and the Joseph Smith history was added sometime later on some blank spare pages that were at the start of the letter book. These blank pages were intended for logs, indexes, table of contents, as new letters were added, etc..

Some points backing this idea up are:

• The page numbering of the history section and the letter section restarts at 1, possibly indicating the Joseph Smith history was added after the letter section had already been started and pages were numbered.

• The Joseph Smith history abruptly ends, almost as if the author ran out of pages to write on (the next page is the beginning of the letter section).

• Fredrick Williams produced an index see http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... erbook-1/5 of what was in the letter book at that time. With the last entry being dated Jan 1833. This index DOES NOT include the JS history narrative. It is entirely missing, implying the history was written sometime after Jan 1833. Cue apologetic response of “lack of evidence is …”.

Looking at each of the church's points

• 1. The ordering of the pages may not matter since there are other explanations, such as the ordering of each section restarts at 1, the author of the Joseph Smith history appear to run out of space, and the index produced by Williams implies the Joseph Smith history was not there in Jan 1833.

• 2. Williams does not specify what he was writing in July 1832, there were numerous other revelations, letters etc.. being dictated by Joseph at the time. This just establishes the earliest possible date.

• 3. The changing lexicon regarding the priesthood, after the Sept 1832 priesthood revelation the term “holy” only referred to the higher priesthood.
  
  In Oliver Cowdrey's 1834 history, see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letters_ ... s/Letter_I page 8, Oliver is describing the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood.
  
  “ when we received under his hand the holy priesthood, as he said, "upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer this priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon earth, that the sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness! “”
  
  Oliver clearly uses the word “holy” in 1834 to describe the lesser priesthood. Oliver the 2nd elder of the church apparently did NOT get the memo, not to use the word “holy”.

• 4. The dating of 1832 for the Joseph Smith history account boils down to the use of the word “holy” which is a very weak argument, there are bound to be other cases where Oliver, or other leaders , or Joseph himself use the word “holy” when talking about the Aaronic Priesthood. How do we not know that Joseph's use of the word “holy” in the letter book account was not a mistake made by Joseph similar to Oliver's mistake?

Seems to me, that to be honest the church should not claim a dating of 1832 for the first Joseph Smith First Vision account, but a range of dates from 1832 to 1837.

I'm of the opinion that the church MUST date the Joseph Smith letter book account to 1832 in order to negate Oliver's 1834 history.

[Hagoth]

Fascinating stuff, el-asherah!

• Fredrick Williams produced an index see http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... erbook-1/5 of what was in the letter book at that time. With the last entry being dated Jan 1833. This index DOES NOT include the JS history narrative. It is entirely missing, implying the history was written sometime after Jan 1833. Cue apologetic response of “lack of evidence is …”.[/list

I think this is a very strong point. We are taught that the First Vision is the single most important event since the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It would be an enormous error to simply forget to include it in the index.

[blazerb]

Thanks. In my opinion, the church wants to date this account as early as it possibly can. The powers-that-be are desperately trying to make the traditional narrative make sense, but it doesn't. There are problems with the First Vision, the visit of Moroni, the restoration of the priesthood. All of the most foundational events of the church are problematic in the details.

[moksha]

In other words no one seems to know about the Grove Vision and everyone accepted what got the ball rolling was the Gold Plate Vision, until when? The letter book account of the Grove Vision was also never publicly known about.

The Smiths were known for their story telling and Joseph, in particular, had that gift. A great part of Joseph Smith's charm was his ability to relate tales in such a way that they captured both the listener's imagination and attention. Parts of the story were never known because they were not yet formulated. They were added later on and extra embellishments from others, such as the Urim and Thummim also made it into the story. The canonized version of the story was complete by 1938.

[ap1054]

Fascinating el-asherah. Thanks for putting this together.

[Hagoth]

I can't remember if we discussed this in the other thread, but one of the footnotes in the JSP mentions that a total of 11 sheets were removed from the letter book, including the "1832" vision, presumably by Joseph F****ing Smith (that's Fielding, mind you) but only 3 were replaced. 8 sheets (16 pages) are still missing. I would love to know if those pages were the ones that immediately followed the first vision account. That would explain the abrupt ending, in addition to raising grave concerns about what might have been written there, in Joseph's own hand, that had to me made to disappear. And, of course, questions about where they went and if they still exist.

[el-asherah]

I can't remember if we discussed this in the other thread, but one of the footnotes in the JSP mentions that a total of 11 sheets were removed from the letter book, including the "1832" vision, presumably by Joseph F****ing Smith (that's Fielding, mind you) but only 3 were replaced. 8 sheets (16 pages) are still missing. I would love to know if those pages were the ones that immediately followed the first vision account. That would explain the abrupt ending, in addition to raising grave concerns about what might have been written there, in Joseph's own hand, that had to me made to disappear. And, of course, questions about where they went and if they still exist.

I'm not sure the missing 8 leaves (16 pages) are immediately after the JS history in the letter book. The JS history was on 3 leaves cut from the letterbook by JFS at the front of the book. The missing 8 leaves (16 pages) seem to be at the back of the book, at least based on my reading of the JSP website source notes at http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... ource-note

The original book apparently contained nine gatherings of twelve leaves each, but eight leaves were cut from the final gathering.1
...
The first three leaves of the volume contain JS’s earliest extant attempt to write a history of his life.2

Later, the book was turned over so the back cover became the front and the last page became the first. One or more texts were inscribed in this side (the back) of the book on the eight leaves that were later cut out, as is evident from inscriptions visible on the remaining stubs of the excised leaves.
The volume was also repurposed as a letterbook. The letterbook begins on the recto of the fourth leaf in the front of the book (immediately following the history).

Footnotes
1. The remnants of five of the leaves are visible. The eight excised leaves are no longer extant.
2. These three leaves were later cut from the volume but have since been reattached. For further information about these leaves and the history inscribed on them, see JS History, ca. Summer 1832.

It would be interesting to do an analysis of what is on the remaining stub inscriptions on the missing 8 leaves.

Edited: I just looked at the photo copies of the letter book on the JSP website and they are missing the photocopies of the "inscriptions visible on the remaining stubs of the excised leaves" at the back of the book. Very interesting!!!!!!

I also wonder if there is a slight of hand going on here where the back of the book is really the front depending on whether you turn it over or not. There seems to be no photocopies of any pages where the book was supposedly turned over and the front became the back.

A cover up of the JFS cover up?

[deacon blues]

D&C 20, and its printed predecessor, the Evening and Morning Star, June 1832, speak of "the first elder" (Joseph Smith) receiving a remission of his sins before the Moroni visitation. This seems to allude to something happening before Sept. 22, 1823. The earliest possible time for the first "First Vision" account as written by Joseph Smith and Frederick Williams would be July 20th, 1832. I'm not sure what to make of it all. It is a distinct possibility that the "1832 First Vision" account could be later. I'm checking to see if Dan Vogel has any thoughts on it.

[el-asherah]

D&C 20, and its printed predecessor, the Evening and Morning Star, June 1832, speak of "the first elder" (Joseph Smith) receiving a remission of his sins before the Moroni visitation. This seems to allude to something happening before Sept. 22, 1823. The earliest possible time for the first "First Vision" account as written by Joseph Smith and Frederick Williams would be July 20th, 1832. I'm not sure what to make of it all. It is a distinct possibility that the "1832 First Vision" account could be later. I'm checking to see if Dan Vogel has any thoughts on it.

Oh please get Dan Vogel involved! I would love for him to way in on this topic. I'm a big fan of Dan and have probably listened to every single one of his podcasts.

I'm pretty sure that "something" did happen before 1823. But the "something" doesn't seem to be the Grove Vision, at least as we now understand it with all the context and elements the church currently assigns to it. It could be something as simple as JS attended a revival or church and felt he was saved and his sins were forgiven. Or he did pray in the woods and felt his sins were forgiven. I think all of us, as we are growing up, have experiences like this. I know I personally have.

Just to document your point, here is the reference in D&C 20:5 After it was truly manifested unto this first elder that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world; 6 But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness; 7 And gave unto him commandments which inspired him; 8 And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon;

[Hagoth]

I also wonder if there is a slight of hand going on here where the back of the book is really the front depending on whether you turn it over or not. There seems to be no photocopies of any pages where the book was supposedly turned over and the front became the back.

A cover up of the JFS cover up?

I am still left scratching my head about this. My takeaway is that the flipping-over of the book, depending on how you read it (or how it is intentionally worded), could very well mean that the missing leaves from the "end" of the book might actually be from the "beginning", and therefore part of Joseph's own writings about early church history that have somehow vanished down the memory hole. It all seems pretty cloak-and-dagger to me. Too bad Mark Hoffman didn't know about it or we might have had another interesting forgery that would have tripped up The Brethren.

[el-asherah]

I am still left scratching my head about this. My takeaway is that the flipping-over of the book, depending on how you read it (or how it is intentionally worded), could very well mean that the missing leaves from the "end" of the book might actually be from the "beginning", and therefore part of Joseph's own writings about early church history that have somehow vanished down the memory hole. It all seems pretty cloak-and-dagger to me. Too bad Mark Hoffman didn't know about it or we might have had another interesting forgery that would have tripped up The Brethren.

You bring up an excellent point. The church asserts with no supporting evidence that the chronological order of the letter book is - JS history then letters, later the book was flipped, and then up to 8 leaves of text was added at the end (beginning) and then cut out.

But it could have been entirely the other way around - up to 8 leaves of text was added at the beginning (end), the book was then flipped, and then the letters were added.

When were the 8 missing leaves actually cut of the letter book? Do we know for sure JFS cut them out? Do we have a reference for this?

Also the church historian's source notes states that the letter book had been rebound for preservation in the late 1900s??. I wonder what the exact date for the letter book rebinding was, and if that was before or after the 3 leaves containing the JS history were found and known to exist?

[moksha]

Adherents of Just Mathias Thiele can get so worked up when they consider the many permutations that the beloved story of Chicken Little has gone through. They point out that originally there was just an acorn. Then it fell from the sky and landed on Chicken Little's head. Then in a later writing Chicken Little became alarmed and told Henny Penny that the sky is falling.

A still later account has both Chicken Little and Henny Penny sharing this portentous event with Ducky Lucky. It is unknown if a later scribe penned in the apocryphal meeting with Lucy Goosey or whether it actually happened. It is thought that the Adversary might possibly be responsible for the terminal inclusion of Foxy Loxy into the story. It is hard to adjudicate the exact truth without a meticulous investigation of the writing dates. That is where rigorous scholarship comes in handy.

[Rob4Hope]

I can't remember if we discussed this in the other thread, but one of the footnotes in the JSP mentions that a total of 11 sheets were removed from the letter book, including the "1832" vision, presumably by Joseph F****ing Smith (that's Fielding, mind you) but only 3 were replaced. 8 sheets (16 pages) are still missing. I would love to know if those pages were the ones that immediately followed the first vision account. That would explain the abrupt ending, in addition to raising grave concerns about what might have been written there, in Joseph's own hand, that had to me made to disappear. And, of course, questions about where they went and if they still exist.

WTF MAN!!!!!!!!!!!

This is off the scale dude! I didn't know this, and its rather interesting from a church that claims to be transparent and honest.