What dilemma led to Joseph Smith’s first vision?

There is a dilemma at the heart of Joseph Smith’s first vision accounts. It is hidden in plain sight. Once you see it you wonder how you missed it before. 

There is a new book out from an esteemed university press.*

One of its chapters illustrates how easy it is to miss the dilemma Joseph emphasized. The author compares Joseph’s experience to some early American conversion narratives and concludes that Joseph’s accounts lack the angst and the typical “transformations of the heart.”

“Nowhere in Smith’s first vision is there a description of the agonies and ecstasies of conversion,” this author claims. Joseph “presents himself not as one whose heart needs changing but one whose mind needs persuading.”

Notice the either/or: “not as one whose heart needs changing but one whose mind needs persuading.” This author thinks Joseph’s accounts are about resolving “cognitive dissonance” or intellectual incongruity “rather than ravishing a sinful heart with infinite love.” These phrases sound fancy but they are uninformed. This is a false dilemma posing as analysis. 

This author has not heard what Joseph is saying

“Nowhere in Smith’s first vision is there a description of the agonies and ecstasies of conversion.” Really? Joseph’s accounts describe both his agony and his ecstasy. (More on that in later posts.)

I remember the day I finally saw the dilemma Joseph describes

It was lunch time. I was sitting outside. I had copies of all the first vision accounts and was reviewing them again, trying to look at them in new ways, asking different questions. I had read each of them many times before. But that day I started paying attention to the number of times Joseph described what was going on in his mind. Then I noticed that he distinguished between his mind and his heart. Then I saw it: Joseph’s was trying to tell me that his mind and his heart were at odds.

Every story has a problem

When Joseph told his story, the crux of the problem was that his soul depended on knowing how to act relative to Christ’s atonement–and how to act he did not know.

The Presbyterian option made sense in his head

He knew he was sinful. He also knew he hadn’t been able to do anything about it. That’s what the Presbyterian option taught him to expect. It made sense. 

The Methodist option appealed to his heart

He attended Methodist meetings and witnessed sinful souls like his feel God’s redeeming love, and “he wanted to get Religion too wanted to feel & shout like the Rest but could feel nothing.” Methodism taught him to expect to feel God’s love if he gave himself to Christ. That didn’t happen, however. No matter how much his heart wanted Methodism, it seemed to his head like the Presbyterian explanation fit best.

One of the options appealed to his heart and the other to his head

No matter how much brain power he put into it, he did not know if his conclusions were right, and no matter how much he tried to follow his heart, he did not know if it was leading him right.  That was the problem. His head was telling him one thing, his heart another. How could he know which was right? The welfare of his immortal soul was at stake. It was a terrible problem. These slices of Joseph’s Manuscript History Book A1, excerpted in the Pearl of Great Price as Joseph Smith-History, verses 10 and 18, highlight Joseph’s dilemma:

10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it? . . . .  

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

Verse 10 is about Joseph’s thought process, about what’s gone on in his head. He has often wondered whether all the options are wrong and how he will be able to decide. The parenthetical clause in verse 18 is about Joseph’s emotional vulnerability. He tells us he has kept the awful, recurring thought that all the options for forgiveness are wrong from entering “into my heart.” 

In 1902, church leaders tasked BH Roberts

with turning Joseph Smith’s history, originally serialized in 1842 in the Times and Seasons, into published volumes. While in that role, he had gathered the serialized “History of Joseph Smith” from back issues of the Millennial Star, the Saints’ British periodical, and bound it into three volumes that he kept and annotated.

His notes show that he thought Joseph contradicted himself in the passages quoted above

Joseph said he “asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right, (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong,) and which I should join.” Earlier, however, Joseph said that prior to his vision he had “often said to myself, what is to be done? Who of all these parties are right? Or are they all wrong together?”

The two lines seemed contradictory to Roberts

He knew that Joseph’s 1842 letter to John Wentworth said that at about age 14 he began to notice “a great clash” between churches and considered “that all could not be right, and that God could not be the author of so much confusion.” So Roberts silently elided the line for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong. That’s why those words are not in the published version of Joseph’s manuscript history (see top of page 6).

If BH Roberts couldn’t see

the dilemma Joseph tried to highlight, it seems wise to be humble and cautious about assuming that we have understood Joseph well. Working hard to listen to Joseph, using both brain and spirit, leads to seeing and hearing things in Joseph’s first vision accounts to which we may have been blind and deaf. 

In my next post I’ll write about Joseph’s other dilemma

the one that kept him from telling his story, and that shaped the way he told it when he finally decided to do so. Stay tuned.

*Grant Shreve, “Nephite Secularization; or, Picking and Choosing in the Book of Mormon,” chapter 8 in Elizabeth Fenton and Jared Hickman, editors, Americanist Approaches to The Book of Mormon (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 207-229. Quoted passages are from page 208.

Did Joseph Smith Obey the Word of Wisdom?

Did Joseph Smith obey the Word of Wisdom?

Whiskey, whiskey, whiskey

Joseph Smith stood before the saints in Nauvoo, Illinois in April 1841 and, with good humor, said: “What are my temptations? Whiskey whiskey whiskey.”  He said he “could live on it and get fat and feel well if God did not say it was sinful. He would not wrestle with it,” Joseph continued, “for he could not throw it.” Some people consider Joseph’s occasional consumption of alcoholic beverages hypocritical. Was it? 

Joseph drank before the Word of Wisdom was revealed

Martin Harris testified that Joseph “drank too much liquor” sometimes before he translated the Book of Mormon. The source for that is Joseph’s published history, so he didn’t try to hide it. Most of the other evidence that Joseph drank before the Word of Wisdom comes from critics, including a statement by Barton Stafford that “Joseph Smith, Sen. was a noted drunkard and most of the family followed his example, and Joseph, Jr. especially, who was very much addicted to intemperance.” But Joseph wasn’t very addicted. He wasn’t even a little addicted.  

Barton was grinding an ax against Joseph. Orlando Saunders is a less hostile, more credible witness. He said “everybody drank in those days,” including the Smith family.  “But,” he added, “they never got drunk.” Actually, Joseph’s dad said in 1834 that he had been drunk in the past, but Saunders and scholar Richard Bushman agree that “Joseph Sr.’s drinking was not excessive for that time and place.” It would have been odd if Joseph didn’t drink. It was common, and not yet forbidden by the Lord. Maligning Joseph for drinking before the Word of Wisdom is silly and mean. 

Joseph also drank after the word of wisdom was revealed in 1833Sidney Gilbert's copy of the Word of Wisdom

His journals are sprinkled with the evidence of occasions on which he drank. There is a pattern. After performing the marriage of a couple in January 1836, Joseph joined the wedding party as they “partook of refreshments, and our hearts were made glad with the fruit of the vine.” Speaking of the New Testament account of Christ furnishing a wedding party with wine, Joseph added playfully, “this is according to pattern set by our Savior himself and we feel disposed to patronize all the institutions of heaven.” 

To Joseph, these were sacramental occasions. He drank wine at weddings in keeping with the Word of Wisdom’s counsel to drink it “only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make” (D&C 89:5-6). The wine Joseph drank on these occasions had alcohol in it. It wasn’t just grape juice. Pasteurization was still half a century in the future. Originally, the Word of Wisdom approved, not condemned, specific, moderate drinking of sacramental wine.

A week after the marriage mentioned above, Joseph officiated in another “matrimonial occasion,” as his journal described it. Afterward groomsmen supplied wine. Joseph said he “cheerfully” blessed it, and the wine “was then passed around in order, then the cake in the same order. Suffice it to say our hearts were made glad, while partaking of the bounty of the earth which was presented until we had taken our fill. Joy filled every bosom,” His journal entry says, “I doubt whether the pages of history can boast of a more splendid and innocent wedding and feast than this. For it was conducted after the order of heaven.”

Not all of Joseph's drinking was sacramental

Joseph also drank wine in sacramental settings in the Kirtland temple, but not all of the occasions on which he drank were sacramental. Joseph apparently had some whiskey while confined in jail at Liberty, Missouri in the winter of 1838-1839. His journal entry for May 3, 1843 notes that Jenetta Richards, a recent immigrant from England, visited his office with a bottle of wine her mother made in England. Joseph’s journal says he “drank a glass of wine with her.”   

A month before his death, according to his journal, Joseph visited Frederick Moesser’s grocery store and “drank a glass of beer.” Originally, the Word of Wisdom approved mild barley drinks like the one Joseph had that day. On the last day of his life, confined in jail at Carthage, Illinois, solemn and conscious that he was about to meet his Maker, Joseph and his associates drank wine. John Taylor, an apostle who was with Joseph, noted later that this was not a sacramental occasion. “Our spirits were generally dull and heavy,” Taylor said, “and it was sent for to revive us,” the way saints today might have a coke in the afternoon. Taylor said all four men in the jail “drank of the wine, and gave some to one or two of the prison guards.” 

Those are the facts. You get to decide what they mean. Some people who are antagonistic toward Joseph, or just not well informed, decide the facts mean that Joseph Smith did not live the Word of Wisdom. That conclusion is anachronistic, or out of historical order. It assumes that observing the Word of Wisdom meant the same thing then that it does now. But it didn’t. 

What it means to obey the word of wisdom has changed over time

The revelation was originally given “not by commandment.” Joseph knew it well and observed it consciously, just not always meticulously, the way we might. He called excessive drinking a “monster,” and “the bane of humanity.” He “never interpreted the revelation as demanding total abstinence, but stressed moderation and self-control.” Joseph urged intemperate saints to be temperate and teetotaling ones to be tolerant.

Joseph might find it odd but not unexpected that critics devour the evidence he left us that once in a while he had a beer or drank a glass of homemade wine or enjoyed sacramental wine, or that he was tempted by whiskey, or that he drank some while he was unjustly imprisoned in a depressing dungeon. He might be puzzled that some people have focused inordinate attention on prosecuting him while overlooking the prophetic Word of Wisdom he produced. “I never told you I was perfect,” Joseph said, “but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” It is not hard to find faults Joseph did not try to hide, but where are the flaws in his revelation known as the Word of Wisdom?