President Marion G. Romney Teaches and Testifies of the First Vision

(Part fifteen of a series compiled by Dennis B. Horne)

            President Romney is much less well-known in the Church today than he once was. He served as a counselor to both President’s Lee and Kimball, but the effects of age drastically diminished his capabilities the last years of his life. Elder Glen L. Rudd, one of his associates in the Church Welfare Program, wrote this of him: “Elder Romney was the most rigid and difficult man at first until I had been with him on two trips and realized that he had built a solid wall around himself and was hard to get to [know] but when he and I finally got on good terms, he turned out of be one of the easiest of all the Brethren for me to talk to. . . . Elder Romney was a remarkable man—much greater than most people thought. He and Elder Lee knew the Book of Mormon better than anyone. President Romney told me his door was always open and I could come at any time to visit him. Toward the last years of his life I would visit with him often and get him to tell me stories about his youth and the great leaders of the Church he knew.” I concur with the statement that President Romney was a greater spiritual giant in the Church than people of his or our generation generally realize:

            As he revealed himself after his resurrection to his followers in the Holy Land and to the Nephites in America, so he has revealed himself in our day. Indeed, this dispensation opened with a glorious vision in which the Prophet Joseph was visited by the Father and the Son. He heard their voices, for they both spoke to him. He was given a personal introduction to the resurrected Jesus by the Father himself. He beheld their glorious bodies and afterwards thus described them: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also.” (D&C 130:22.)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1982/05/the-resurrection-of-jesus?lang=eng

            I know that the Prophet Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. I know he saw God, the Eternal Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ, as he says he did. I was not there, but I have read his account many, many, many times. From his account I get in my mind a mental picture, but I did not get my knowledge that he had the vision from that source. I received it from the whisperings of the Holy Spirit, and I have had those whisperings in my mind the same as Enos had when he said, “. . . the voice of the Lord came into my mind” (Enos 1:10). (Conference Report, April 1953, 123-25.)

Joseph Fielding McConkie Discusses the First Vision and Tolerance

Selections from the article, “The First Vision and Religious Tolerance”

(Part fourteen of a series compiled by Dennis B. Horne)

            In revelation both ancient and modern, the Lord calls His words “sharper than a two-edged sword” (D&C 6:2; 11:2; 12:2; see also Hebrews 4:12). In modern vernacular, much of what He said would be politically incorrect. It could be considered judgmental, divisive, rigid, closed-minded, or just plain embarrassing. Yet in some instructional meetings, the teaching of ethics prevails over the teaching of doctrine, thus avoiding disagreements or the possibility of giving offense. Everyone is content to speak of God’s love; rarely is His wrath or displeasure mentioned. . . .

In this context the reader is invited to consider three touchy or sensitive texts that stand at the very heart of our theology. These texts have been chosen to honor Joseph and Hyrum Smith, the great martyrs of our faith. They did not seal their testimony with their blood in Carthage Jail so that we may teach ethics. They did not die hoping that future generations of Latter-day Saints would say to the world, “Look, we are just like you.”. . .

Each of the three texts comes from the revelations of the Restoration, and each is frequently considered offensive by those not of our faith. Even within the Church some are uncomfortable with these texts and feel a need to apologize for them. . . .

The second is part of the Prophet’s account of the First Vision, in which he asked the Lord which church he should join: “I was answered,” the Prophet said, “that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof’” (Joseph Smith—History 1:19). . . .

            I would like to make some brief observations about the principle of tolerance. . . .

Elder Bruce R. McConkie Teaches and Testifies of the First Vision

(Part thirteen of a series compiled by Dennis B. Horne)

            As one of the greatest doctrinal and scriptural thinkers and teachers of the 20^th century, Elder McConkie occasionally turned his attention to expounding matters related to the First Vision. Further, his testimony of that supernal theophany left no doubt that he knew with perfect certainty that it had occurred:

            By comparison to what then occurred, the command of the man Moriancumer unto the mountain Zerin, “Remove,” and it was removed; or the decree of the man Moses to the Red Sea, “Divide,” and the waters were divided, congealing on the right hand and on the left; or the command of the man Joshua, “Sun, stand thou still, and thou moon likewise,” and it was so—by comparison to what happened in that grove of trees in western New York on that spring morning, such things as these fade into an obscure insignificance.

            As we approach with awe and reverence, in the spirit of worship and thanksgiving, the heaven-sent miracle of that bright morn, let us view first the setting in which the heavens would be rent and the miracle wrought.

            That year of grace, 1820, like the 1,400 years which preceded it, was one in which darkness covered the earth and gross darkness the minds of the people. It was a day of spiritual darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains. Angels no longer ministered to their fellow beings; the voice of God was stilled, and man no longer saw the face of his Maker; gifts, signs, miracles, and all the special endowments enjoyed by the saints of old were no longer the common inheritance of those in whose hearts religious zeal was planted. There were no visions, no revelations, no rending of the heavens; the Lord was not raining down righteousness upon a chosen people as he had done in days of old.

Orson F. Whitney’s Dream-Vision of the Savior

(Part twelve of a series compiled by Dennis B. Horne)

            March of 2020 will see the BYU Church History Symposium held at both Brigham Young University and at the Conference Center in Salt Lake City, the main theme being the first vision received by the Prophet Joseph Smith. In the original “call for papers” the symposium committee listed “Latter-day Saint visionaries” other than Joseph Smith as a topic they desired to consider. I sent them a proposal for a paper on Orson F. Whitney’s dream-vision of Jesus, knowing it had a few aspects in common with the Prophet’s first vision. My proposal was not accepted for reasons unknown, but I have chosen to put the below information together nonetheless, as it may yet be of interest to some.

            One criticism leveled at Joseph Smith relates to the fact that he wrote or dictated several accounts of his first vision with additional details in each. Antagonistic unbelievers have erroneously interpreted the extra information to mean that Joseph made up new particulars as he went along, becoming more grandiose with each telling. This approach is not well considered and is a flimsy effort to reject the Prophet’s testimony and thereby relieve themselves of the burden of belief—with all the accountability and obligation that comes with it. Said President Gordon B. Hinckley: “I have read the words of critics, who from 1820 until now have tried to destroy the validity of that account. They have made much of the fact that there were several versions and that the [canonized] account as we now have it was not written until 1838. So what? I find security for my faith in the simplicity of his narrative, in its lack of argument, in its straightforward reasonableness, and in the fact that he sealed his testimony with his life’s blood.” I vastly prefer this astute prophet’s explanation to that of the skeptics; the fact is, he knew it was true by the power of the Spirit of God.

            President Hinckley could have said much the same things about Whitney’s vision. As it happens, one similarity Brother Orson has with Brother Joseph is that he also left multiple accounts, written at different points over his (much longer) life. Five written records exist (that I could locate), along with notes mentioning other unrecorded tellings. Another similarity is that slightly more detail emerges with each account, though the whole remains consistent, as does the lesson the vision taught to Whitney.

President Joseph Fielding Smith Teaches and Testifies about the First Vision

(Part eleven of a series compiled by Dennis B. Horne)

            President Smith was the grandson of Hyrum Smith, brother to the Prophet Joseph Smith. He was and still is considered one of the great expounders of doctrine and interpreters of the scriptures in this dispensation. He became President of the Church with the death of President David O. McKay. He felt a special responsibility and therefore took pleasure in teaching about his forebears and the mission they performed as church leaders. His words reflect that obligation:

            I want to say to all those who are listening at this particular time that I have a testimony that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, and is, for his work has not ceased, for a righteous man's work does not cease: Joseph Smith was a righteous man when he died; I know that he was called, appointed by our Father in heaven; that he received revelation and guidance from the Son of God that would be of benefit and a blessing to all men if they would receive it.

            Now in what I have to say I wish to direct my remarks to those who are not members of the Church, if there are any such listening. I want them to know that I believe this sincerely and absolutely. That is my faith. I think I can say safely it is my knowledge, by the gift of God, that Joseph Smith in the year 1820 did see the Father and the Son; that the Father introduced his Son; that the Son spoke to him, asked him what he wanted to know, and gave him counsel; told him what to do, with the promise that eventually other light would come and the fulness of the gospel, which was not then upon the face of the earth, would be restored.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Must Accept the First Vision (or they are not Latter-day Saints)

(Part ten of a series compiled by Dennis B. Horne)

            Many Latter-day Saints are not aware of the below teachings that in order to be considered a full, true, and faithful Latter-day Saint, they must, sooner or later, develop a conviction born of the Spirit, that Joseph Smith received a visitation from the Father and the Son. Most missionaries gain this conviction by prayerfully studying and teaching the account from Joseph Smith’s history. Some critics, often referring to themselves as “cultural Mormons,” deny Joseph’s testimony (along with the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the priesthood, and other miraculous foundational matters), and desire participation in the “community” the Church provides without believing in it. The reason that doesn’t work is that they also seek to change the community to their way of thinking, or denying, the foundational truth claims of the Church. In reality, you either believe/know, or eventually come to believe/know, or eventually leave. Some (sadly) leave loudly and try to drag others out with them; too bad.

            On a side note, I noticed that one of the listed subjects that may be examined in the forthcoming BYU Church History Symposium on the First Vision (March 2020), is “J. Reuben Clark’s 1938 statement that religious educators must assent to the First Vision as a historical event—context and implications.” This means a scholar may research and talk about the below teachings of President Clark at the symposium—we shall see. But the statement itself, taken from the “call for papers” is not correct. What President Clark actually said was “In all this there are for the Church, and for each and all of its members, two prime things which may not be overlooked, forgotten, shaded, or discarded.” I see that he was not simply talking about “religious educators” but “each and all of its members”—a major difference.

            Whether or not that proves to be the case (that someone presents a paper on the subject), the fact is that President Clark and some other church leaders have taught that this is fundamental to personal faith and testimony. So much so, in fact, that President Clark, speaking for and in behalf of the First Presidency, stated that if you do not gain an inner conviction of Joseph’s First Vision and the restoration of the priesthood, you are “not a Latter-day Saint.” So much for so-called “cultural Mormons” and other dissidents who want to be in the Church community but not of it—President Clark is not gentle in referring to such and his declarations are strong. And you don’t have to attend a symposium or buy a book later to study them:

President Nelson Expounds on Life With and Without the Book of Mormon

Messages assembled by Dennis B. Horne

            In his “Closing Remarks” of the October 2019 General Conference, President Russell M. Nelson invited members to ask themselves questions about what their life and their world would be like without the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the major events that attended it. One example he gave was this: “Our course of study for next year in Come, Follow Me is the Book of Mormon. You may wish to ponder important questions such as, ‘How would my life be different if my knowledge gained from the Book of Mormon were suddenly taken away?’”

            As it happens, President Nelson has himself asked and answered this very question. It seems he has not asked the membership of the Church to do something he himself has not done, and we might also conclude that he found the exercise so valuable that he felt inspired to invite others to do likewise. Even though Pres. Nelson indicated we could and should come up with our own questions, I would suppose that it could not but help to review and study his insightful questions and answers. He did this in an address to the Church not long before he became its president.

            At the bottom of President Nelson’s General Conference talk The Book of Mormon: What Would Your Life Be Like without It?, is (the below) information that is not found in the talk as delivered (in 2017) and constitutes something of an appendix to his message—counsel that he continues to promote as President of the Church.