Millet, “I Saw a Pillar of Light: Sacred, Saving Truths from Joseph Smith’s First Vision” (Reviewed by Mark Tensmeyer)

Title: I Saw a Pillar of Light: Sacred, Saving Truths from Joseph Smith’s First Vision
Author: Robert L. Millet
Publisher: Deseret Book
Genre: Religious Non-fiction
Year Published: 2020
Number of Pages: 164
Binding: Hardcover, eBook, Audiobook (MP3)
ISBN-13 Hardcover: 9781629727998
ISBN-10 Hardcover: 1629727997
Price: $19.99

Reviewed by Mark Tensmeyer for the Association for Mormon Letters

The two hundredth anniversary of the First Vision sparked a renewed interest in the Restoration’s inaugural event. Robert Millet’s I Saw a Pillar of Light is one of several books on the subject to come out this year. Millet’s book is short but more comprehensive than most. It is one-part history, one-part apologetics, one-part devotional, and one-part inspiration. The book does a chronological review of the First Vision touching on these parts as the story unfolds. The appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ, for example, prompts the discussion of the apparent contradiction of the number of Personages in the accounts, doctrine of the corporeal nature of God, and a doctrinal discussion of transfiguration together with other insights. This format arranges these topics in a logical sequence and makes the book easy to read.

The central thesis of Pillar of Light is that the First Vision is foundational to the Restoration. That is, it is the starting point for all other doctrines and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To illustrate this point, Millet tells two anecdotes. The first being his experience as a new missionary preaching on Wall Street. A businessman asked him if the Church teaches that men can become gods (pg. 2). The second being his experience as the institute director in Tallahassee, Florida when two missionaries asked him to resolve for them the apparent contradiction of Matthew 20:30 and the doctrine of eternal marriage (pg. 116). In both cases, the answer was the First Vision. The First Vision establishes that an Apostasy occurred and that a Restoration needed to and did happen. As Millet told those missionaries, “If everything taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were in the Bible, we wouldn’t need a Restoration.” But even more to the point, the First Vision is testimony by Joseph Smith Jesus Christ and that He lives today and guides his Church. Latter-day Saints can and ought to read and reflect on these accounts as a means to find their own connection to God and the Restored Gospel. With that foundation in place, the individual can then accept other doctrines of the Church (pg. 4). Embracing simple, foundational truth claims before approaching more difficult matters is a familiar concept to Latter-days but this is more typically focused on the Book of Mormon. Millet suggests that the First Vision ought to occupy a foundational place in the testimonies of Latter-day Saints and investigators (pg. ix).

Concerning the history, Pillar of Light incorporates contemporary academic research on the First Vision better than most devotional books. Millet draws from all four direct accounts from Joseph Smith and from most of the secondary accounts, particularly Orson Pratt’s 1839 account. The 1839 Levi Richards account is left out due to being brief and not having any unique elements (pg. 8). Relying on Richard Bushman, Millet acknowledges the prevalence of theophany reports in the region at this time but points out that none of these other experiences resulted in their recipients founding a new church (pg. 25).

Recent scholarship, including Richard Bushman’s work, has cast doubt on whether Joseph received widespread persecution and mockery that he would later face while obtaining and translating the gold plates, and in the rest of his life. This is in part due to the lack of sources, particularly from his family, that discuss him speaking about it at all and due to the fact that theophany accounts were not uncommon in the time and place. Millet briefly touches on this, only directly quoting what was said in the 1838 account (pg. 89). Rather, Millet focuses all discussion of persecution on the Protestant minister who rejected Joseph’s testimony and why the emerging Protestantism of the 1820s would have rejected Joseph’s testimony. In approaching it this way, Millet does not quite adopt the scholarly narrative that widespread persecution did not follow the First Vision but does not emphasize the persecution to the degree that devotional histories commonly do. Millet accurately explains that Joseph Smith did not often speak of the First Vision and did not use it to teach doctrine (pg. 92). Further, that it did not enter the Latter-day Saint canon until 1880 with the canonization of the Pearl of Great Price nor was it prior to that time given the same emphasis it has in the Church today (pg. 95). Millet does not discuss how his thesis of the First Vision being foundational to a testimony of the Restoration accounts for the fact that it evidently was not to the first generation of Saints. Not the most significant apologetic issue related to the First Vision, but Millet’s thesis would be stronger had he addressed this.

Speaking of apologetics, I must note that the term is often derisively but I do not mean it to be. I see apologetics in this sense as simply a response to criticism. Apologetics can be plausible or implausible and consistent with evidence or inconsistent with evidence. Millet implements a version of the mollification of memory theory to account for the apparent inconsistencies in the accounts (pg. 50). We do not get a treatment as thorough or technical as Steven Harper’s recent work but Millet provides relatable anecdotes to convey a similar idea. He relates how he had a spiritual experience in his younger years that he recorded in a journal. Years later and after having more experience with personal revelation, he added to his account drawing from all he had learned in the interim (pg. 46). Joseph Smith, Millet postulates, was doing something similar with his later accounts. Joseph had learned a great deal about the nature of God and what the Restoration was about. All the elements of the later accounts were present that day in 1820 but Joseph decided to include them after understanding their significance.

The apparent discrepancy between “the Lord” in the 1832 account and the “two personages” in all later accounts is reconciled by the understanding that the phrase “the Lord” as used in scripture and the Latter-day Saint vernacular can and frequently does refer to God the Father and Jesus Christ collectively (pg. 43). This is not a new apologetic, but Millet articulates it well and cites several sources to support this theory. I personally find it a plausible explanation as the 1832 account does not describe the messenger(s) beyond the designation of “the Lord”.

Millet reconciles Joseph’s 1832 account that he had concluded before going to the Grove that all churches were wrong with the later accounts’ statement that it never occurred to him that all were false by saying that the former referred to all the local churches Joseph had an opportunity to examine (pg. 59). This explanation does not quite square with the text. In part of the account, Joseph writes that after applying the principles he learned by reading the Bible to those different denominations of which he had “intimate acquaintance” he found they did not “adorn their profession by a holy walk with Godly conversation.” However, Joseph writes later in the account: “I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord, but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith, and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the New Testament” (pg. 130, emphasis mine). Millet’s explanation might work but he would need to address the specific language in this second passage.

Concerning theology, Millet relates relevant theological points as the First Vision narrative progresses. The topics of seeing God with spiritual eyes versus natural eyes, the reality of Satan and his power, and the anthropomorphic nature of God are all explained in terms familiar to Latter-day Saints.

One theological area that Millet spends a great number of pages on, and one of my favorite passages in the book, is his discussion on the nature and implications of the Apostasy. This is a topic Millet has spoken and written extensively on and the reader is treated to a nice summation. To be brief, Millet firmly extols the traditional Latter-day Saint narrative that the original Christian Church lost the apostolic authority following the death of the apostles and thereafter lost essential doctrines and adopted false teachings and practices (pg. 60). This necessitated the Restoration of the true Church. Millet writes that being the true church does mean that Latter-day Saints should not look for truth outside the Church nor does it mean that they are the only faithful followers of Christ (pg. 66). Though the ordinance of baptism by authority is necessary for the Celestial Kingdom, that can be done after death and many Christians of other faiths will have a place there (pg. 68). Further, God puts people in places so they can do His work in the world in ways they could do better than if they had been in the Church (pg. 68). Quoting Gordon B. Hinckley, Millet writes that Church is the only true and living church and that those are “hard words for those of other faiths. We don’t need to exploit them” (pg. 72).

In a departure from traditional Latter-day Saint devotional material, Millet writes that the corporeal nature of God may not have been something Joseph Smith learned at the time of the First Vision (pg. 104-105). Millet takes into account the statement in the Lectures of Faith that states God the Father is “a personage of Spirit”. Millet also leaves open the possibility that Joseph may have learned about the corporeal nature of God at the First Vision.

Finally, a devotional book such as I Saw a Pillar of Light ought to give the reader a new appreciation for the topic and inspire them to make new strides in their spiritual life. In this, Millet delivers in spades. Joseph Smith’s testimony of the First Vision is one of the most powerful testimonies of Christ we have access to making it an important source to go to in order to have our own reassurance of the truth of God and the Restored Gospel. Millet illustrates this with his own experience going through a period of doubt as a missionary that he came through after reading the 1838 account (pgs. 119-120). Millet extols the First Vision as not only a foundation for Latter-day Saint’s testimony but for their life. The First Vision, Millet explains, teaches us to search the scripture for answers but then go to God directly (pg. 102). The First Vision shows us the Atonement of Christ is accessible to any person at any time in their lives (pg. 104). Joseph’s question was not a merely academic one (which Church is true) but one that showed he was going to act (which Church should I join) (pg. 58). Likewise, the Lord will respond to our efforts to get personal revelation if we are intending to do and not merely know. These are just a few of the wonderful insights Millet shares.

I Saw a Pillar of Light is a short, easy read. I would especially recommend it to new members or youth. Much of the contents will be familiar to anyone who has had a few years’ experience in the Church but there are sure to be at least some new insights a seasoned member will glean. I found some. Longtime members will especially appreciate the reframing of familiar insights and doctrinal lessons from the First Vision in terms of contemporary scholarship. I especially recommend the book to Church members who have no interest in reading an academic work as a means of learning and integrating contemporary scholarship. As a devotional book, I cannot see this book being of much interest to those whose interest in Mormonism is academic. Those in this camp might find this book interesting as a window into how Latter-day Saints see the First Vision.