Joseph Smith’s First (or Second) Prayer

Rumor has it that the folks assembling the new Church hymnal are planning to embrace the multiple accounts of the First Vision with a completely rewritten version of the hymn “Joseph Smith’s First Prayer.” We here at ZD are pleased to present this draft leaked to us from hidden sources deep in the COB.

1. Oh, how lovely was the morning!
Or perhaps ’twas afternoon!
Bees were humming, sweet birds singing,
Or the birds may have ceased to croon,
When within the shady woodland
Joseph sought the God of love,
Or he may have wandered, unplanned,
When he got word from above.

Photo by Axel Holen on Unsplash

2. Humbly kneeling, sweet appealing—
’Twas the boy’s first uttered prayer—
Or perhaps he’d been concealing
Vocal prayers that were far from rare;
But undaunted, still he trusted
In his Heav’nly Father’s care,
Or he may have been quite daunted
And been filled with deep despair.

3. Suddenly a light descended,
Brighter far than noonday sun,
Or perhaps from earth ascended
Thick darkness that left him stunned,
While appeared two heav’nly beings,
God the Father and the Son,
Or it might have been just angels
Or a heav’nly being One.

4. “Joseph, this is my Beloved;
Hear him!” Oh, how sweet the word!
Or the Lord alone announced
Joseph’s sins would no more be heard.
Oh, what rapture filled his bosom,
For he saw the living God,
Or perhaps he found it humdrum,
And he noised it not abroad.

2 comments

  1. Ziff,
    There are aspects of this epic faith and people that deserve some good-natured ribbing once in a while, and times when we need a full-out dressing down as a strategy to re-focus on what is relevant. Peeling back the layers purity culture and idolatry, misogyny, racism, struggles with religiosity and personal development, etc. forces us to reflect, re-examine and grow. ZD drops the mic when it comes to this. What though, is the purpose of petty jabs at Joseph and the saints as they synthesize through sincere interpretive art and rhetoric, the meaning of the FV?

    One thing that I cling to- that I ardently believe is that God is close, God’s presence and love can touch simple people like subsistence farmers, shepherds and shepherdesses, and (as in the movie ‘Oh God’ with John Denver and George Burns)even grocery store managers, can experience God in profound ways. We are not constrained merely to the “tender mercies” (as much as that term annoys me) and simply serendipities that more frequently flutter into our souls. Why disparage that? What good does it do me, to tear-down beliefs of another?

    There are other explanations for the different details that emerge in the many years of re-telling of an astounding event. FBI experts cite that when stories change, it’s often a marker of integrity as someone who is lying would intentionally repeat and emphasize the same carefully-crafted story as to not introduce facts that could be demonstrated false. Have you ever tried explaining a jarring event like a car crash? Re-telling it exactly the same way? When several emotions and events coincide at the same time, when time is suspended, the mind is hyper-attuned to details, “life flashes before our eyes”, and adrenaline is running, how do you share that story? Like re-singing a symphony in a single voice, wouldn’t you hum different motifs and voices in an attempt to somehow explain all the harmonic parts? Where would you start? Chronologically? By theme? Which details? It’s terribly difficult. Ask an attorney who is prepping a witness, pulling out relevant points in desired order requires structured and neutral questioning. I digress, I don’t want to argue about the possibility or probability of the First Vision, that would be too pedestrian for ZD. Instead, I ask why tear down the idea of a personal communion with Divinity, whether it be Joseph, Moses, Abraham, Mohammad, Arjuna and Krishna, or my neighbor Pete’s daughter? I know this poem was a little jab and not a philosophical treatise, but isn’t there something more to unpack about who we are, who deity is, and how we interact with each other, than disparaging the seeming imperfections of the story-teller? Oh G- I hope so. I expect several misconceptions to fall in my growth and understanding of Deity, but the belief in my that the distance between G- (call this concept love- universality, etc.) and my soul can shrink from a far-away being, to personages directly above me, to oneness; is core to me. I suppose the rhyme seemed to mock that, to dance around “it” whether it’s the possibility, probability, belief or knowledge, or combinations of them.

    I don’t correct you, I leave you to your journey and feelings, realizing that I probably inadvertently sound defensive when I intended to factually share sincere feelings. I’ll just say that standing beside you (not behind, not ahead) and being in a different place on this bumpy faith journey, my heart is pained at the jabs.

  2. I’m sorry I hit something dear to you, Mortimer. For what it’s worth, this wasn’t intended as a jab, but rather just as a silly thought experiment on how the Church could more fully embrace multiple accounts of the First Vision.

    I’m aware that eyewitness testimony is messy, and that people telling the truth don’t tell the same story from one telling to another. Even given that, I think there does seem like a motivated pattern in Joseph’s re-tellings, where the event became more significant with time. But that’s really a tangential point, I guess.

    In any case, thanks for reading and thanks for your feedback.

Comments are closed.