Reimagining the Prophet Joseph Smith’s First Vision
A 200th-year anniversary reflection
Introduction:
Our church leaders asked us to reflect on the 200th anniversary of our Prophet Joseph Smith’s First Vision of both God and Jesus during this past General Conference. What a great opportunity for fresh, new personal reflection. This short essay will embark on what I call the Reimagining of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s First Vision. As a Yale Divinity School theology graduate, I decided to take another look and felt inspired to write the following paper. My educational background lies outside the Mormon context, in a Catholic and Protestant one. I converted three years ago, and my journey of new revelation has continued. I have a background in biblical and theological studies, which has given me a unique lens for biblical exegesis within a Mormon context. My area of theological training centers around liberation theology, a fairly new area of study within theology. I enjoy asking new questions about Scripture from various cultural perspectives, e.g., gender, economic, and sexual perspectives, among others. I believe that God speaks to us right where we find ourselves and just as we define ourselves. With this in mind, I have reimagined the First Vision account, but this time from a new perspective.
I have divided this paper into two parts. I wrote the first several years ago before I was ever exposed to Mormon teachings. I only intended to generate discussion, arguing that biblical translators might consider leaving the name Elohim as Gods during translation. I felt that maybe God was trying to tell us something that we do not understand fully and that changing the meaning of Elohim from a plural to a singular might be an overreach. I will explain more in Part 1, but it serves as a good introduction to Part 2.
The second part will be a new reimagining of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s First Vision account in light of a new perspective and question, in which I ask the reader to follow along on a new journey of possibilities by asking a simple new question, one that will allow for reimagining Joseph Smith’s First Vision. By first discussing the name Elohim in Part 1, and leading into the second part, things will begin to look a lot different. Joseph Smith’s First Vision will take on a new perspective when we consider new questions. Sometimes just when we think we know everything, a simple question can open up a whole new realm of possibilities.
PART 1: “Elohim or Gods: Why Change?” Genesis 1:1
I wanted to spend a little time focusing on the aspect of Elohim (Hebrew word for Gods). I recently found myself speaking on the concept of Gods. I will examine the concept of Gods and address the plural use of the word Elohim within Judeo-Christian Scripture. This section will embark on the use of the name for God, Elohim, within Scripture and why I believe translators should pause before changing the word Gods into the singular word God.
Let’s begin with Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (NASB) The translation here for “God” is actually “Elohim” in Hebrew, which means Gods and verse 1 should be written as such. “In the beginning, created Gods this heaven and this earth.” Yet this is not what one reads when they look at their English translations. Why? The obvious reason is that it does not fit within their preconceived theology. Thus, a change is necessary.
The use of the plural name for Gods, Elohim, opens the door for further examination, as the notion should not be immediately dismissed simply because it creates obvious conflict with one’s theology. I often have written that over time, when approaching Scripture objectively, I found myself outside the bounds of Protestant and Catholic theology. This is one of those cases. The Bible begins by speaking about Gods (Elohim), and one must seriously consider this ramification. I will give you a brief explanation of the name Elohim, cross-reference supporting Scripture, and address some of the arguments that Protestant and Catholic theologians have used over the years basically to change the entire meaning of Genesis 1:1 and other Scripture verses.
Elohim is the Hebrew plural name for Gods in the Bible. While Elohim is plural, the name at times is followed by a singular verb. When Elohim is used to identify false gods, a plural use of the verb tense is at times used. This is one of the main arguments made for changing the plural name Elohim to the singular name, Eloah (singular for God in Hebrew). We should note that Elohim appears approximately 2,000 times in Scripture, while Eloah appears approximately 250 times. While this argument of singular and plural tenses may seem valid, there are numerous exceptions. Let’s take a look at some:
Gen 20:13: “When God caused me to wander from my father’s house….” This is Abraham talking, and here, the more literal translation should read “…Elohim they caused me to wander….” Abraham uses Elohim with a plural verb. The Gods caused Abraham to wander in this verse.
Gen 35:7: “Because there, God had revealed Himself to him….” In this verse, Jacob built an altar to God because Jacob had seen the Elohim (the Gods). The verse should read “The Gods (Elohim) revealed themselves….” Jacob has seen the Gods, and they revealed themselves. Thus, Jacob built an altar to them.
Psalm 58:11: “And men will say, “Surely, there is a reward for the righteous; Surely there is a God who judges on earth!” The more accurate translation should read “The Gods (Elohim), they judge the earth!” In this verse, there is a plural, Gods, who will judge the earth, so who are they?
These few verses and many more show that Elohim also can take a plural verb when speaking of the God of Israel, and it is clearly denoted. Elohim (Gods), at times, are even mentioned in the same sentence twice, which makes Protestants and Catholics even more uncomfortable.
Psalm 45:7: “Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; Therefore, Gods (Elohim), Thy Gods (Elohim), has anointed Thee With the oil of joy above Thy fellows.” The first Elohim is addressing the second Elohim. These are two distinctly different personages here, in which the first Elohim places the second Elohim above His companions and anoints Him with the oil of joy.
Once again, who are these Gods?
Hosea 1:7: “When the Lord (Elohim) first spoke…But I will have compassion on the house of Judah and deliver them by the Lord their Gods (Elohim)…” As noted, we begin with Elohim saying that Elohim will deliver Judah by a second Elohim. Two distinctly different Elohim are placed in the same verse, with one addressing the other.
These verses introduce the name Elohim addressing each other, but it also happens with the name Jehovah in Gen. 19:24, There is a fire and brimstone coming down from Jehovah on earth, while another Jehovah is in heaven. In Zech. 2:8-9, we see one Jehovah sending another Jehovah to accomplish a task. The same happens with the name Adonai, in Psalm 110:1: “Jehovah said to my Adonai.”
Yet at times, God speaks in the plural sense, such as in Gen 1:26, when God said, “Let Us make man in Our image…” to follow up this verse in Psalm 149:2: “Let Israel be glad in his Maker; Let the sons of Zion rejoice in their King.” But the singular use of the name Maker is actually Makers. The verse should read, “Let Israel be glad in his Makers.” To continue with this theme, we read in Ecclesiastes 12:1: “Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth,…,” when the literal translation should read, “Remember also your Creators….” One more verse, Isaiah 54:5: “For thy Maker is thy Husband: Jehovah of host is His name” should read “for thy Makers is thy Husbands; Jehovah of host is His name.”
I believe we have established a basis for examination, but now I want to address some overall themes that Protestants and Catholics use to discount these verses to change their meaning. One of the arguments is that the author did not intend to convey a plural meaning with the use of the name Elohim. This is an argument I hear often and one I actually argued against in my Systematic Theology course. For me to believe this argument, I must first discount the following facts:
1. Scribes who wrote Scripture were highly educated, as only royalty and high-ranking officials were literate. Thus, it was a highly prized skill. Not just anyone could walk into a school or other place and learn to read and write. It typically was reserved for royalty, high-ranking officials, and their heirs. It was serious business because empires of this era relied on scribes to operate their realms. Thus, it is difficult to believe that scribes would not know the difference between a singular noun or verb and a plural noun or verb. They grew up with their particular language and assumed this extremely important occupation, one in which mistakes simply were not tolerated. Scribes would not have made such mistakes.
2. In the case of scribes who wrote the Torah, they always worked in groups. Torah were highly prized items, and Jews used extremely high vetting standards to ensure the accuracy of each Torah. Every single page of the Torah was exactly the same, and each scribe took great pains to ensure perfection. These highly educated scribes would complete a page, then another senior scribe would look over their work. Then each page of the Torah was written in such a way that it produced rows and columns, forming a grid pattern. In Hebrew, each letter receives a numerical value; thus, a senior scribe would be able to add up the numerical values for all letters in a row to obtain a total numerical value for that row, which then would be cross-checked with a master copy for accuracy. They would do this for each row to ensure accuracy, then the same process would be done for each column to ensure each Ancient Torah was perfectly identical. It was simply impossible for a single letter to be incorrect, much less an entire word.
3. Additionally, numerous copies of ancient writings have been unearthed that all seem to match. The fact that we have multiple copies that all read the same shows that we are not relying on a single copy that could contain errors, but rather multiple copies, to make comparisons and ensure accuracy.
The process used to produce Scripture by ancient scribes was a process of perfection. I totally discount the argument that the authors meant to convey a different meaning from what was actually written. This mistake would not have been made by masters of their own language, whose documents were double-checked by senior masters. This was a highly prized skill in which perfection was demanded and achieved.
This elicits the question: Why do theologians repeatedly change the meanings of these verses, when the author clearly meant exactly what was written? The reason is simple: Those who translate documents do so through their own theological prisms to make interpretations while translating. Thus, when they come across a verse that clearly does not agree with their preconceived theology, they begin to look at ways to rewrite the verse so that it agrees with their preconceived beliefs.
Then there is the argument that no language can be translated literally into another language. That is true. There is no such thing as an exact literal translation in many cases. I have often had to deal with this argument as well. Although no literal translation is often possible, the literal meaning is possible to translate and communicate. In all the cases I have dealt with, the meaning is clearly conveyed in the original language, and it can be translated as such. I have provided numerous examples in this short section. The literal meaning is there, yet theologians continually change the meanings of verses that do not fit their theological frameworks. Given all the facts known about scribes and how Scripture was produced, we can conclude that the authors meant to convey exactly what they wrote down, and we should not make any changes to the meaning of a single verse.
This section began by examining the concept of Gods - Elohim. This section was meant only to show that the same Scripture that Protestants and Catholics avail themselves to actually opens the door for further discussion of Gods in Heaven. The fact that Scripture has been manipulated over time, and that many theological assumptions have been made due to erroneous translations, should be a topic of discussion. The topic of Gods is a real subject that should not be ignored.
PART 2: “The Reimagining of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s First Vision”
The aforementioned argument for leaving the plural name Elohim as Gods poses new questions? Why did the Old Testament prophets use the name Elohim? Apparently, many people do not understand how the concept of Elohim is to be understood. Elohim in Hebrew often represents the God of Israel (God), yet Elohim is a plural noun, which causes obvious confusion within Christendom. I want to introduce a new idea or concept for the name Elohim – a reimagining from a new perspective.
Mormons believe that the name for God is Elohim, which led me to reflect on this. It seems puzzling at first why Mormons would believe that God’s name is Elohim, but when contemplating the subject, I arrived at a few conclusions that I believe might shed some light on the subject. My background in liberation theology causes me to view Scripture from distinctly different perspectives, as I approach questions about Scriptural texts from different angles. While reading Joseph Smith’s First Vision, I asked different questions, one of which is how would Joseph Smith’s First Vision account differ had he spoken Hebrew and had he lived before Jesus walked the earth? This simple question opened up a totally new perspective, allowing for a reimagination of the entire event.
I reflected on the idea of Elohim earlier in this essay by asking: “Why do Mormons believe the name for God is Elohim?” After all, I made a case for the fact that the Old Testament uses the name Elohim in numerous places to refer to the concepts of Gods. At times, the God of Israel is referred to as Elohim within the Old Testament. In fact, I wrote about how the Old Testament refers to “Makers in Heaven,” “Creators in Heaven,” and “Judges in Heaven,” and that several Old Testament prophets – such as Abraham, Jacob, and other Wisdom Book writers – refer to Elohim (Gods) in Heaven. And yet, when scholars translate the Old Testament, it continues to be singularized when translated out of the original plural Hebrew form. The obvious reasons are that it poses an immediate conflict to the theology of those who translate the Bible. After all, is there really more than one God in Heaven? Well, maybe – let us see!
I have written in the past that the arguments used to change the meanings simply did not make sense to me – after all, we have numerous copies of ancient manuscripts that all say the same thing, Elohim, Gods, Creators, and Judges in Heaven. A few years ago, I read the Pearl of Great Price for the first time. As I read Chapters 4 and 5 of the Book of Abraham, I saw the similarities of what I had written earlier in Part I, titled “Elohim or Gods: Why Change?” and my more literal translation of Genesis 1:1. It was truly striking to see the similarities in what is written in the Book of Abraham. While discussing the similarities, the question arose: “Why would Joseph Smith say that God’s name is Elohim? How does that make sense?”
While contemplating the question, I thought about all the passages that I had referred to in the Old Testament and how these prophets of God continually used the name Elohim and the concept of Gods. When confronted with the God of Israel, these prophets used the name Elohim frequently. There had to be a reason because they easily could have used a singular name for God.
So, why did prophets use the name Elohim when speaking about the God of Israel or when having a vision of God? One thing that came to mind is that they were describing the fact that they were seeing more than one personage, and that being unable to account for that fact made the use of Elohim important. We do not have a full account of these Old Testament prophets other than for some reason, they chose to use a plural name for God, Elohim, when describing their visions. However, in other sections of the Old Testament, one finds the use of the name or words such as Creators, Makers, and Judges in Heaven. This creates questions that cannot be answered if we use solely Catholic and Protestant theology. There is no belief in the idea of multiple Gods unless we use the concept of the Trinity within a Protestant/Catholic concept.
With this in mind, I return to the name Elohim. Why use Elohim? I mentioned that we do not have an account of why Genesis would start with “In the beginning, created Gods this Heaven and this earth” (my more literal translation); why Abraham would say, “The Gods caused him to wonder,” or why Jacob would say, “He built an altar to the Gods.” We do not know why these and other prophets continually spoke of Gods and Creators, but maybe it is because they did not have the correct interpretative lens, nor did they have enough progressive revelation. Rather than change the meaning of Scripture, maybe we need to re-evaluate our theology. I have written about the concept of progressive revelation, which is the fact that God continually is revealing more of Himself over time. As time goes by, we learn more and more about God, yet we do not have a complete understanding of God here on earth. This simple fact is humbling when it comes to theology, in which one is trying to make sense of God’s Word. It also serves as a reminder that sometimes, we do not have a complete understanding, and that more revelation is necessary for one to gain a true understanding of particular subject matter within Scripture.
I say all this because I believe that God may have revealed to us, through the prophet Joseph Smith, the meaning of the name Elohim. His vision may have revealed to us more than meets the eye, literally. I already have noted that Mormons believe in God and Jesus as being two distinct personages, which is unique because of Joseph Smith’s vision, in which he tells us how he saw both God and Jesus, at the same time, when God tells Joseph Smith to listen to His Son (Jesus). In Joseph Smith’s vision, he clearly expresses this idea of God and Jesus being two distinct personages. As I contemplated this idea, I realized that Joseph Smith's vision is exactly what we need to reinterpret and reimagine earlier Scripture. This vision gives us an understanding of Elohim. Elohim becomes God and Jesus, a representation of Elohim, or Gods. Joseph Smith did not come up with the concept of Elohim – it was revealed to him, yet I do not believe that he realized the magnitude of this new perspective. This is not something he would have been taught, especially because he had limited secular and religious education at his young age. If you look back at the vision, and you were to ask Joseph Smith to recount his vision, but this time in Hebrew, you would begin to see things much differently. Joseph Smith would have said he saw “Elohim” or “the Gods.” One must realize that when you place Joseph Smith pre-Jesus and only speaking in Hebrew, like the Old Testament Prophets, the only way he could have described this vision would be to say, “I saw the Gods (or Elohim)” in Hebrew. Without progressive revelation, the Old Testament prophets were at a loss as to how to describe their visions. Seeing the manifestation of both God and Jesus, knowing and understanding that these are the Gods of this world, they had no other name with which to describe this vision other than using the name Elohim, the Gods. This is truly noteworthy because it allows us to understand that the Old Testament prophets may have had the same vision as our Prophet Joseph Smith! As amazing as this may seem, it bears careful consideration, and it also allows us to place ourselves in the same position as the prophets of yore. Now we may have the interpretative key to unlock past prophets’ understanding. Smith's vision denotes “Elohim” because Smith saw God and Jesus together, yet they are both God – thus, the name Elohim. Had Joseph Smith lived like the older prophets of yore, before the time of Jesus, the only logical way to express his vision would have been to use the name Elohim or Gods to describe the appearance of God and Jesus together.
A whole new interpretative lens emerges within this fact that the prophet Smith saw Elohim. One now can come to an understanding that Elohim can be the manifestation of both God and Jesus here on earth. Is this what the earlier prophets saw, but were unable to express? Did they, in fact, give us an accurate description after all, but one that we were unable to understand until now? The Old Testament prophets simply did not know Jesus, as he had not walked the earth yet. The earlier prophets only were able to use the name Elohim, in the absence of Jesus, so they simply would not have been able to use any other word, or in this case, name. The revelation of Jesus to the Old Testament prophets was not made known to us on earth at that time. Within the name Elohim, we have the plurality of the Godhead being revealed, and now, because of Joseph Smith, we begin to understand the meaning of Elohim as being the earthly manifestation of God and Jesus. Surely, God’s truth can have more meanings because God’s Word is transcendent, but this new interpretative lens of Elohim being God and Jesus now can be used for biblical exegesis. One now can reinterpret earlier Scripture through this new light and come to a deeper and more profound understanding of what the prophets of yore were trying to convey when they spoke of Elohim, Creators, and Makers.
The process of progressive revelation is not over, as God still is revealing more of Himself, and we need to listen. As a theologian, I often stop short of inferring meaning where it is not expressed literally. At times, we can read into a passage what is not there, and we try to guess at what the writer might have been trying to communicate. Sometimes, we may be correct, but other times, we can be wrong. The best mode of expression is to acknowledge that some passages do not provide us with a full revelation, and that although we can use other Scripture to help with interpretation, we must be willing to concede that our conclusion is more speculation than truth at times.
Over the years, the use of speculation, instead of progressive revelation, has caused confusion and misinterpretations. Where once I wrote about Elohim as simply the plural name for God, I stopped short of trying to explain the full meaning of the use of the name. However, I now believe that I can make a case for Elohim based on the reimagination of Joseph Smith’s First Vision. Placing Joseph Smith in a new context and asking new questions can give us a new perspective. This simple reimagining of Joseph Smith’s First Vision can cause further discussion and contemplation. Placing the prophet Smith within the realm of prior prophets is quite intriguing, so let us now consider earlier reflections on the name Elohim.
Epistemology – a tool used while deriving meaning from words, especially during biblical exegesis – now can be used to make a case for Elohim. Joseph Smith had a different vocabulary available to him, and he would have known who Jesus was. Thus, he was able to express his vision of both God and Jesus. Someone without the revelation of Jesus would not have had the appropriate vocabulary to describe the oneness of the two personages, other than using Elohim in the Hebrew. Epistemology is contextual to the time, circumstances, and individual. People’s use of certain words can vary from region to region and time to time, and dictionaries often discuss how words evolve and may be used differently depending on the region, allowing for numerous distinct definitions throughout a word’s evolution. Remaining within this concept, I am inferring that the name Elohim could mean God and Jesus, as one, expressed by Old Testament prophets as Elohim. Joseph Smith gives us a unique understanding of the Godhead, in which both God and Jesus (the Son of God) coexist, yet are different in personages. I believe that this truth also is very relevant in understanding why Old Testament prophets may have seen the Godhead of Israel, yet continually use the idea of Makers in Heaven, Judges in Heaven, and Creators in Heaven.
Epistemology continues to give us more revelation about Elohim if one considers the name אֱלֹהִ֑ים (Elohim in Hebrew). The early Jewish sages broke down Elohim as follows: The root of the name is אֱלֹ, which means “power.” Thus, Elohim is a compound word comprising אֱל “power” and הים “them,” i.e., the word power is attached to the word them. It literally means “The Power of Them.” The early Jewish sages have plenty to say about the mystical name of Elohim. “The Power of Them,” when viewed through Joseph Smith’s lens, could refer to the manifestation of both God and Jesus, or the Power of Them, or Elohim. This creates space for more discussion. Could the “Power of Them” be pointing to the manifestation of the vision that Joseph Smith had? It does cause one to contemplate the possibilities.
This is a very unique understanding, one that has huge ramifications not only within a Mormon context, but also within the world of biblical exegesis. How can this new interpretive lens be used to make sense of Scripture? Can a comparison between the vision of the prophet Joseph Smith now be compared with the visions that earlier Prophets of yore had? Drawing parallels between the Old Testament prophets and the prophet Joseph Smith now can begin through use of the name Elohim and Joseph’s First Vision. A new understanding and revelation now can allow for new discussions and possibilities – a reminder that progressive revelation is still taking place and that God continues to reveal more of Himself to mankind. Does this mean that Elohim must only be confined to the aforementioned interpretation? No. The name is still transcendent, and Elohim can have a much greater revelation over time. The comparison of the prophets is simply one possibility among many others that can bring us closer to God.
Furthermore, if we consider how God interacts with humanity, we can make some observations. The God of this world accomplishes His purpose within humanity through His Son Jesus. It only would make sense that when God reveals Himself to humanity, Jesus always would be at His right hand. Additionally, He always would direct us to listen to His Son. God’s purpose for humanity always will be accomplished through Jesus, who was prepared before the foundation of this world. God would never make Himself known to us by Himself, but rather through Jesus at his right hand.
I hope to create a discussion, as I believe that we still must discuss the concepts of God within the Hebrew Bible, as I mentioned earlier in the essay. Rather than make Scripture conform to our theology, we should allow Scripture to reform our theology. Theology is a vast subject, and we do not have all the answers to our questions. Thus, at times we need to admit that fact, rather than make assumptions. At times, theology comes from assumptions rather than solid biblical exegesis, while theologians try to infer meanings, rather than wait for the full revelation. Is it possible that this reimagining of Joseph Smith’s First Vision allows us to reflect on prior Scripture, giving us a deeper understanding? I think so.
We can continue to view the First Vision account of our prophet Joseph Smith as an opportunity for humanity to gain a deeper understanding of creation. God’s transcendence is truly great when the God of creation enters this world, and we can expect to glean truth from that experience for years, decades, and possibly centuries to come. The fact that God transcends time, space, and dimensions means that a true encounter with God is simply too much for any one person to truly express – and revelatory truth will transcend it as well. The fact is that when God enters this world, He does not come alone, nor does He come for the sake of one individual! God and Jesus did not come for the benefit of our prophet Joseph Smith alone, but for the benefit of humanity. Joseph Smith never would have had all the words necessary to truly express the magnitude of that vision because God is so transcendent that our language simply would not have been able to describe the vision with all of its meaning completely. I hope that this paper is a sign that Joseph Smith’s vision is still speaking to us today and still holds truths that have not been revealed yet. It is my belief that any manifestation of God and Jesus in this world will continue to speak to us and that it is meant for all of creation and humanity to glean more progressive revelation. With this 200th anniversary of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, we still can gain more revelation about God, as the vision is still speaking, we know that our prophet Joseph Smith saw both God and Jesus, and that his vision probably was what the Old Testament prophets of yore saw and experienced themselves. It should come as a refreshing and comforting truth that the God of creation and His Son Jesus Christ have not left us without true revelation. They still speak to us and continue to manifest themselves to us, and we know that today, His church is still listening to them, with Elohim continuing to give us revelation as needed. Elohim still is speaking, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is here to continue giving us revelation because God still moves among His people and seeks us out.
Simply reimagining the First Vision and asking new questions can open up new windows of understanding and possibilities within Scripture. As a liberationist, I always want to ask new questions of the text, consider new perspectives, and not shy away from further revelation. The vision that Joseph Smith had is transcendent and still speaks to us, and we should be ready to listen and glean new truths whenever possible. Let us continue to take up the challenge that our leaders gave to us at this past general conference: to continue our reflection on Joseph Smith’s First Vision, as there still may be more to consider.