FairMormon Answers Wiki Table of Contents

Response to "Letter to a CES Director: First Vision Concerns & Questions"

Response to section "First Vision Concerns & Questions"

Summary: The author states, "Like the rock in the hat story, I did not know there were multiple First Vision accounts. I did not know its contradictions or that the Church members didn’t know about a First Vision until 22 years after it supposedly happened. I was unaware of these omissions in the mission field as I was never taught or trained in the Missionary Training Center to teach investigators these facts."

Jump to Subtopic:

The multiple First Vision accounts have been discussed many times in official, semi-official, and outside venues.

YouTube Video Response: "Letter to a CES Director: CES Letter 22 to 23 First Vision" by Brian Hales.

Response to claim: "There are at least 4 different First Vision accounts by Joseph Smith"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

There are at least 4 different First Vision accounts by Joseph Smith.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Jump to Detail:

Richard J. Maynes: "Joseph wrote or dictated four known accounts of his First Vision"

Elder Richard J. Maynes speaking at the Worldwide YSA Devotional held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on 1 May 2016. https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/worldwide-devotional/2016/05?lang=eng Image from LDS.org

The Church has published information about these accounts since at least 1970.

Elder Richard J. Maynes, Presidency of the Seventy, at the Worldwide Young Adult Devotional held 1 May 2016 in the Salt Lake Tabernacle:

Let me share with you some historical context leading up to Joseph Smith's First Vision...Joseph wrote or dictated four known accounts of his First Vision. Additionally, his contemporaries recorded their memories of what they heard Joseph say about the vision; five such accounts are known. It is a blessing to have these records. They make Joseph’s First Vision the best-documented vision in history. I encourage you to visit history.lds.org to learn more about the accounts and see how they work together to paint a more complete picture...Like the individual New Testament Gospels that together more completely describe Christ’s life and ministry, each one of the accounts describing Joseph’s First Vision adds unique detail and perspective to the total experience. They together tell Joseph’s consistent, harmonious story. They all emphasize that there was confusion and strife among Christian churches, that Joseph desired to know which — if any — was right, that he searched the scriptures and prayed, that a light descended from heaven, and that divine beings appeared and answered his prayer.—(Click here to continue) [1]





Gordon B. Hinckley (1984): "I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision"

Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign (October 1984):

I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life.[2]





Gospel Topics: "The various accounts of the First Vision tell a consistent story, though naturally they differ in emphasis and detail"

Gospel Topics on LDS.org:

The various accounts of the First Vision tell a consistent story, though naturally they differ in emphasis and detail. Historians expect that when an individual retells an experience in multiple settings to different audiences over many years, each account will emphasize various aspects of the experience and contain unique details. Indeed, differences similar to those in the First Vision accounts exist in the multiple scriptural accounts of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus and the Apostles’ experience on the Mount of Transfiguration.3 Yet despite the differences, a basic consistency remains across all the accounts of the First Vision. Some have mistakenly argued that any variation in the retelling of the story is evidence of fabrication. To the contrary, the rich historical record enables us to learn more about this remarkable event than we could if it were less well documented. [3]—(Click here to continue)





Seminary Manual (2013): "Joseph Smith emphasized different aspects of his vision in his multiple accounts"

Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual (2013), LESSON 6: Joseph Smith—History 1:1–20:

Just as Joseph Smith emphasized different aspects of his vision in his multiple accounts, the Apostle Paul emphasized different aspects of his vision of the Savior to different audiences (see Acts 9:1–9; Acts 22:5–11; Acts 26:12–20). Why do you think Joseph Smith and Paul emphasized different things each time they related the accounts of their visions? [4]





Backman (1985): "On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his sacred experience of 1820"

Milton V. Backman, Ensign (January 1985):

On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his sacred experience of 1820. Possibly he penned or dictated other histories of the First Vision; if so, they have not been located. The four surviving recitals of this theophany were prepared or rendered through different scribes, at different times, from a different perspective, for different purposes and to different audiences.1 It is not surprising, therefore, that each of them emphasizes different aspects of his experience.[5]





Allen (1970): "the Prophet described his experience to friends and acquaintances at least as early as 1831-32...he continued to do so in varying detail until the year of his death"

James B. Allen, Improvement Era (April 1970):

Nevertheless, it can now be demonstrated that the Prophet described his experience to friends and acquaintances at least as early as 1831-32, and that he continued to do so in varying detail until the year of his death, 1844. We presently know of at least eight contemporary documents that were written during his lifetime.[6]





Neuenschwander (2009): "Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experience...it became the founding revelation of the Restoration"

Dennis B. Neuenschwander, Ensign (January 2009):

Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration. [7]





Prothero (2003): "in the 1832 version, Jesus appears to Smith alone, and does all the talking himself. Such complaints, however, are much ado about relatively nothing"

Stephen Prothero, American Jesus: How the Son of God Became a National Icon (2003):

Critics of Mormonism have delighted in the discrepancies between the canonical [1838 PGP] account and earlier renditions, especially one written in Smith's own hand in 1832. For example, in the 1832 version, Jesus appears to Smith alone, and does all the talking himself. Such complaints, however, are much ado about relatively nothing. Any good lawyer (or historian) would expect to find contradictions or competing narratives written down years apart and decades after the event. And despite the contradictions, key elements abide. In each case, Jesus appears to Smith in a vision. In each case, Smith is blessed with a revelation. In each case, God tells him to remain aloof from all Christian denominations, as something better is in store.[8]





Question: What are the criticisms related to Joseph Smith's accounts of the First Vision?

Joseph Smith gave several accounts of the First Vision that include different details

Some charge that differences in the accounts show that he changed and embellished his story over time, and that he therefore had no such vision. [9]

It is claimed by some that the Church has not discussed these accounts in official Church publications.

One critic of the Church states, "I learned that Joseph Smith provided multiple and varying accounts of his first vision story, and that some of these accounts (e.g., his descriptions of the Godhead) seemed to evolve over time to correspond with his own changing beliefs." [10]

Joseph tailored the story and details included of his vision based upon his audience

Joseph adjusted and emphasized certain portions of his narrative of the First Vision to account for his audience, as well as to incorporate his evolving understanding of Church doctrine. This is not unusual:

We often edit or entirely rewrite our previous experiences—unknowingly and unconsciously—in light of what we now know or believe. The result can be a skewed rendering of a specific incident, or even of an extended period in our lives, that says more about how we feel now than what happened then. Thus, without knowing it, we can modify our own history.” [11]

The Church has published information about the various First Vision accounts since at least 1970

The Church has published information about the various First Vision accounts since at least 1970. Critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints often seek to point out differences between the various accounts which Joseph Smith gave of his First Vision. In defense of their position that the Prophet changed his story over a six year period (1832 to 1838) they claim that the earliest followers of Joseph Smith either didn’t know about the First Vision, or seem to have been confused about it. The Church, however, has discussed the various accounts in a number of publications. Joseph Smith's various accounts of the First Vision were targeted at different audiences, and had different purposes. They, however, show a remarkable degree of harmony between them. There is no evidence that the early leaders of the LDS Church did not understand that the Prophet saw two Divine Personages during his inaugural theophany.

off-site A graphical comparison of the details of Joseph Smith's accounts of the First Vision. Image courtesy of LDS.net. Original may be viewed at LDS.net page "Why Are There Differences Between Joseph Smith’s 4 First Vision Accounts?"





Jump to Subtopic:

: The claim is sometimes made by critics that the LDS Church hides the various accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision that are not in its official canon. The following chronological database (compiled by FairMormon volunteer Edward Jones) demonstrates conclusively that this is simply not the case. The various accounts of the First Vision have been widely acknowledged in LDS-authored sources throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.





The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director make(s) the following claim:

The dates / his ages are all over the place (April 2013)

The dates / his ages: The 1832 account states Joseph was 15 years old when he had the vision in 1821 while the other accounts state he was 14 years old in 1820 when he had the vision. (October 2014)

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Jump to Detail:

Question: Are the ages stated in Joseph's accounts of the First Vision "all over the place?"

All other accounts except the 1832 one state Joseph's age as 14 or that he was in his "fifteenth year"

The spin: The dates and ages were never "all over the place," which is why the author eventually corrected this statement in his later revisions.The facts: Only the first account shows an age discrepancy of age 15 rather than age 14, and the entry regarding the age wasn't even in Joseph Smith's own handwriting.

The ages are not, as one critic states, "all over the place." [12] The only account produced by Joseph Smith that indicated a different age was the 1832 account (age 15 rather than 14, based upon a text insertion above the line by Frederick G. Williams after Joseph had already written his account). All remaining accounts indicate age 14 (the "15th" year).

The only account showing a different age is the 1832 account, which states age 15 rather than 14

In the 1832 account, Frederick G. Williams inserted the "in the 16th year of my age" above Joseph's text after Joseph had already written it. (See: "History, circa Summer 1832," The Joseph Smith Papers)

In the 1832 history, the farther back in time Joseph Smith goes, the more inexact Joseph's dating scheme becomes

The 'one-year-off-the mark' dating anomaly of the 1832 First Vision account can best be understood by taking a look at all of the dates and time frame indicators that are provided within the document. It can then be seen that the farther back in time Joseph Smith goes, the more inexact his dating scheme becomes.

Notice that the date of the First Vision is an above-the-line insertion in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams, meaning that it was not placed in the text initially but was added at a later time than the creation of the main text.

(17 years back in time)

"at the age of about ten years my father Joseph Smith Sr. moved to Palmyra" [23 Dec. 1815 – 23 Dec. 1816]

(15 years back in time)

"At about the age of twelve years my mind become seriously impressed" [23 Dec. 1817 – 23 Dec. 1818]

(12 years back in time)

"from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart" [23 Dec. 1817 – 23 Dec. 1821]

"while in <the> attitude of calling upon the Lord <in the 16th year of my age> a pillar of fire" [23 Dec. 1820 – 23 Dec. 1821]

"for many days "

" about that time"

"after many days "

(7 years back in time)

"when I was seventeen years of age I called again upon the Lord . . . [and an] angel [appeared]. . . . it was on the 22d day of Sept. AD 1822"

(5 years back in time)

"the plates [I] obtained them not until I was twenty one years of age"

"in this year I was married . . . 18th [of] January AD 1827"

"on the 22d day of Sept of this same year I obtained the plates"

"in December following we moved to Susquehanna"

Joseph Smith: "I was merely instructed in reading and writing and the ground <rules> of arithmetic which constituted my whole literary acquirements”

Particular attention should be focused on the fact that even though Joseph Smith correctly stated that he was "seventeen years of age" when the angel Moroni appeared to him on 22 September 1823, he got the time of that manifestation wrong by one year. A clue as to why this incorrect date was placed by the Prophet in this historical account can be found right in the 1832 document itself. Near the beginning of the narrative Joseph writes: “being in indigent circumstances [we] were obliged to labor hard for the support of a large family having nine children. And as it required the exertions of all that were able to render any assistance for the support of the family therefore we were deprived of the benefit of an education. Suffice it to say [that] I was merely instructed in reading and writing and the ground <rules> of arithmetic which constituted my whole literary acquirements”. Elder Orson Pratt once asked rhetorical questions of the Prophet to illustrate his meager level of formal education: "Had you been to college? No. Had you studied in any seminary of learning? No. Did you know how to read? Yes. How to write? Yes. Did you understand much about arithmetic? No. About grammar? No. Did you understand all the branches of education which are generally taught in our common schools? No." (Journal of Discourses, 7:220-21). And when Elder Pratt wrote specifically about the First Vision he was even more specific about the level of the Prophet's math skills, saying that he had "a very limited understanding of the elementary rules of arithmetic." (Orson Pratt, An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions [Edinburgh, Scotland: Ballantyne and Hughes, 1840], ---).

In the 1838 history, Joseph got the year of his own brother's death wrong

The 1832 history is not the only one where the Prophet made a dating mistake that was one year off the mark. He did the same thing when he created the 1838 Church history, but this time he got the year of his own brother's death wrong. He erroneously remembered that it was 1824 instead of 1823. The significant thing about this particular dating blunder is that four years after the Prophet recorded the initial information he came to the realization that it was not correct and had his scribe, Willard Richards, make the appropriate adjustment. Perhaps the problem with the date was brought to the Prophet's attention by a member of his own family after the information had been printed and made available for public perusal [publication in May 1842; correction in December 1842].

Initial Manuscript Record (2 May 1838)

"Alvin (who is now dead)"

"In the year Eighteen hundred and twenty four my fathers family met with a great affliction by the death of my eldest brother Alvin."

Publication ( 15 March 1842 / 2 May 1842)

"Alvin, (who is now dead)" (Times and Seasons, vol. 3, no. 10, 15 March 1842, 727).

"In the year eighteen hundred and twenty-four my father's family met with a great affliction by the death of my eldest brother Alvin." (Times and Seasons, vol. 3, no. 13, 2 May 1842, 772).

Post-Publication Manuscript Correction (2 December 1842)

"Alvin (who <died Nov. 19th: 1823 in the 25 year of his age.> is now dead)" [the last three words are stricken out]

"In the year Eighteen hundred and twenty four my fathers family met with a great affliction by the death of my eldest brother Alvin." [this year designation was not corrected by Willard Richards - whose editorial additions and notes end before this point in the manuscript]

A similar type of dating correction scenario, as mentioned above, may have taken place in connection with the 1832 history. Oliver Cowdery claimed that he had the Prophet's help in creating his December 1834 Church history article and despite the fact that he had the erroneously-dated 1832 document sitting in front of him [see paper on this subject] he provided the correct year for the Prophet's First Vision - "in the 15th year of his life" (i.e., between 23 December 1819 and 23 December 1820). And just nine months later the Prophet himself was telling a non-Mormon that the First Vision took place when he was "about 14 years old" (Joseph Smith diary, 9 November 1835).





Question: Is there a case where Joseph stated that his age was 17 rather than 14 at the time of the First Vision?

Some critics think so: One case in which the age in an 1835 account was mistakenly stated as age 17

An image from "mormoninfographics" is in circulation on the internet which mistakenly states that Joseph claimed that he was age 17 when the First Vision occurred. However, this was a misreading of Joseph Smith's 1835 journal entry, which clearly states that Joseph was age 14 at the time of the first vision, and age 17 at the time of Moroni's visit.

[13] An anti-Mormon "mormoninfographic" which attempts to demonstrate that the ages of the first vision accounts are different. Since this was posted, the owner of "mormoninfographics" acknowledged and corrected this mistake by removing all of the ages from this particular graphic.





The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (October 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The dates / his ages: The 1832 account states Joseph was 15 years old when he had the vision in 1821 while the other accounts state he was 14 years old in 1820 when he had the vision.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Jump to Detail:

Question: Why does Joseph Smith state in his 1832 First Vision account that he was in his "16th year" of age?

The only account showing a different age is the 1832 account, which states age 15 rather than 14

Joseph's scribe Frederick G. Williams inserted the phrase about Joseph being in the "16th year" of his age in the 1832 account.

In the 1832 account, Frederick G. Williams inserted the "in the 16th year of my age" above Joseph's text after Joseph had already written it. (See: "History, circa Summer 1832," The Joseph Smith Papers)

Joseph's 1832 account states the "16th year" of his age in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams

In Joseph Smith's 1832 First Vision recital he said that he was "in the 16th year of [his] age" when the manifestation took place but in all other accounts in which he mentions his age, he was in his "fifteenth year."

Is this evidence that the Prophet's story evolved over time, and was thus a fabrication to begin with?

The only First Vision account that provided a different age was the 1832 account written in Joseph Smith's own handwriting. In 1832, 12 years after the First Vision, Joseph wrote, "we were deprived of the bennifit of an education suffice it to say I was mearly instructid in reading and writing and the ground rules of Arithmatic which constuted my whole literary acquirements."

There is nothing nefarious in Joseph Smith correcting his own slight mathematical miscalculations

Although the portion of Joseph's 1832 history is in his own handwriting, the text insertion of "in the 16th year of my age" was in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams, Joseph's scribe. It is likely that Joseph's dating schemes were slightly off when he dictated his age to Williams, many years after-the-fact. There is nothing nefarious in Joseph Smith correcting his own slight mathematical miscalculations.

Two years later, Oliver Cowdery had Joseph's 1832 history in his possession when he began publishing history of the Church in late 1834 in the Latter-day Saints' Messenger and Advocate. Oliver clearly established Joseph's age as 14 ("the 15th year of his life") during the period of religious excitement (although Oliver ultimately never described the actual First Vision at this time). Once the date of the First Vision was correctly established it remained steady throughout all subsequent recitals as the "15th year" or "age 14."





Response to claim: "The reason or motive for seeking divine help – bible reading and conviction of sins, a revival, a desire to know if God exists, wanting to know which church to join – are all over the place"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The reason or motive for seeking divine help – bible reading and conviction of sins, a revival, a desire to know if God exists, wanting to know which church to join – are all over the place . (April 2013)

The reason or motive for seeking divine help – Bible reading and conviction of sins, a revival, a desire to know if God exists, wanting to know which church to join – are not reported the same in each account . (October 2014)

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Jump to Detail:

Saints: "'Joseph,' the Savior said, 'thy sins are forgiven.' His burden lifted, Joseph repeated his question: "What church shall I join?'"

The spin: The author exaggerates perceived differences in the accounts.The facts: In reality the accounts contain primarily the same core details, with some additional details in specific ones. The only major difference is that the 1832 account mentions one personage ("the Lord") instead of two, although the Father is also later mentioned, indicating that Joseph perceived that Jesus Christ and the Father were separate beings even in the 1832 account.

“Hear Him,” chapter 2 of Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days, Volume 1, The Standard of Truth, 1815–1846 (2018):

Joseph looked into the face of Jesus Christ. It was as bright and glorious as the Father’s. “Joseph,” the Savior said, “thy sins are forgiven.”[14] His burden lifted, Joseph repeated his question: “What church shall I join?”[15]





Question: What was Joseph Smith's motivation for going to the grove to pray in 1820?

Joseph had two motivations: obtain a forgiveness of sins, and a desire to know which church was right

Joseph Smith's stated motivation for praying to the Lord changes between the first known account of the First Vision (1832) and the official version of it (1838). The 1832 account emphasizes his desire for a forgiveness of sins, and the 1838 (official) account emphasizes his desire to know which church was right. Some critic claim that Joseph changed his story in later years.

The texts that are employed by critics to justify the charge of 'differing motivations' are as follows:

1832

"I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy"

1838

"My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join."

The words that precede the point at which Joseph Smith offers his prayer in the 1832 text demonstrate that the anti-Mormon claim about his motivation changing is not sustainable. These words read as follows (standardized for readability):

At about the age of twelve years my mind become seriously impressed with regard to the all important concerns for the welfare of my immortal soul which led me to searching the scriptures believing, as I was taught, that they contained the word of God.

Thus applying myself to them, and my intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations, led me to marvel exceedingly. For I discovered that they did not adorn their profession by a holy walk and godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository. This was a grief to my soul.

Thus, from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the situation of the world of mankind: the contentions and divisions, the wickedness and abominations, and the darkness which pervaded the minds of mankind.

My mind become exceedingly distressed for I became convicted of my sins.

And by searching the scriptures 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.

And I felt to mourn for my own sins and for the sins of the world.

For I learned in the scriptures that God was the same yesterday, today, and forever. That He was no respecter to persons, for He was God. For I looked upon the sun - the glorious luminary of the earth - and also the moon rolling in their majesty through the heavens, and also the stars shining in their courses, and the earth also upon which I stood, and the beast of the field and the fowls of heaven, and the fish of the waters, and also man walking forth upon the face of the earth in majesty and in the strength of beauty - whose power and intelligence in governing the things which are so exceding great and marvelous, even in the likeness of Him who created them.

And when I considered upon these things my heart exclaimed, "Well hath the wise man said, 'It is a fool that saith in his heart there is no God.'" My heart exclaimed, "All all these bear testimony and bespeak an omnipotent and omnipresent power; a Being who maketh laws and decreeeth and bindeth all things in their bounds; who filleth eternity; who was, and is, and will be from all eternity to eternity." And when I considered all these things and that that Being seeketh such to worship Him as worship Him in spirit and in truth, therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy.

Historian Christopher Jones has observed that Joseph Smith's 1832 account (and indeed much of his other three accounts) are shaped as Methodist conversion narratives. Within Methodism (and indeed the broader religious culture of Joseph Smith's day), finding forgiveness of sins and joining the right Church rode in tandem. You receive forgiveness of sins by joining the right Church. If you don't follow the correct, "biblical" doctrine then you can't receive such forgiveness.[16] In the case of Joseph Smith, he receives forgiveness of sins and is told not to join any church with which he was acquainted at the time.

There are those who claim that Joseph Smith only claims to seek forgiveness of sins in his 1832 account. These critics are ignorant of the larger historical context under which the 1832 account was written (documented by Jones) and also fail to take notice of scriptural passages quoted near the end of the account in which Christ echoes Matthew 15:8-9:

the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not <​my​> commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to thir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which <​hath​> been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is?] written of me in the cloud <​clothed​> in the glory of my Father

This clearly does not refer to young Joseph's seeking of a forgiveness of sins. It must refer to an apostasy and restoration of a Church--the true Church of Christ that Joseph had already proclaimed to restore as Doctrine and Covenants 1 (revealed in 1831) makes clear:

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually

Some may counter that this only refers to corrupt people and not corrupt churches or religions. Going back to the passage from the 1832 account cited above, one reads "the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doth good no not one..." This phrase ('and none doeth good no not one') is echoed in a few scriptural passages (Psalm 53: 3; Romans 3: 10, 12; Moroni 7:17) but for our purposes we will highlight one of these occurrences in JST Psalm 14:2. The Church still describes this passage in its heading as lamenting "the loss of truth in the last days[.]" The passage "looks forward to the establishment of Zion." The italics represent edits made by Joseph Smith to the text:

"Joseph Fielding McConkie said, 'The JST rendering of this Psalm reads like another account of the First Vision.'[17]

The late Matthew Brown suggested that Joseph's translation of Psalm 14 took place 'shortly after late July 1832.'[18] He even goes so far to say that 'the JST Psalm 14 text may have served as a prototype of sorts for the composition of the 1832 historical document.'[19]

The 1838-39 account’s mention of 'corrupt professors' seems to be reflected in the JST’s 'their teachers are workers of iniquity.' . . . JST Psalm 14:2-4 features 'all these who say they are [the Lord’s]' being rejected by the Lord due to them having 'gone aside,' 'become filthy,' and 'none of them…doing good.' And this is laid at the feet of 'their teachers' who 'are workers of iniquity.'"[20] This use of Psalm 14 to be explanatory for Joseph's use of no one doing good is strengthened by the fact that Psalm 14 is quoted specifically earlier in the 1832 account ("And when I considered upon these things my heart exclaimed, 'Well hath the wise man said, It is a fool that saith in his heart there is no God.'")

Thus, to summarize again, those who don't do good are all people and this is caused by false teachers teaching incorrect doctrine.

The 1832 account emphasizes Joseph's want of forgiveness as a means to the end of restoring the true Church of Christ. This is completely in line with the rest of the accounts and thus the standard narrative of the First Vision and Joseph's motives in seeking such a vision as taught officially by the Church.





Question: Did Joseph Smith change his stated motivation for praying in later years after he received the First Vision?

The story elements of the vision remain steady over time

The assertion that Joseph Smith's motivation for prayer changes in later accounts of the First Vision event does not pass the test of close examination. The evidence shows, rather, that the story elements remain steady over time. Joseph's motivations for praying are not, as one critic puts it "all over the place." He had two motivations: forgiveness of sins, and a desire to know which church was right.

1832 Account —

my intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations, led me to marvel exceedingly. For I discovered that they did not adorn their profession by a holy walk and godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository. This was a grief to my soul....

My mind become exceedingly distressed for I became convicted of my sins....He spake unto me saying, 'Joseph my son, thy sins are forgiven thee.

— my intimate agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository. This was a grief to my soul.... My mind become exceedingly distressed for I became convicted of my sins....He spake unto me saying, 1835 Account (9 Nov. 1835) —

being wrought up in my mind, respecting the subject of religion and looking at the different systems taught the children of men, I knew not who was right or who was wrong and I considered it of the first importance that I should be right....

he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee....

— being wrought up in my mind, respecting the subject of religion and looking at and I considered it of the first importance that I should be right.... 1835 Account (14 Nov. 1835) —

This account is simply a one line summary of the vision - motive not given.

— This account is simply a one line summary of the vision - motive not given. 1838 Account (published in 1842) —

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?....My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join....

many other things did He say unto me which I cannot write at this time....

— If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?....My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join.... 1840 Account by Orson Pratt—

...if any one of these denominations be the Church of Christ, which one is it?...

He was informed that his sins were forgiven.

It must be kept in mind that those who report the Prophet's inaugural manifestation in writing do not always spell things out in exactly the same way; sometimes they obscure information by the language they choose to utilize and on occasion they omit story elements altogether (possibly because of audience considerations).





Question: How do the First Vision accounts compare on the subject of Joseph's motivation for praying?

Summary of themes

Between the ages of 12 and 15 Joseph Smith became exceedingly distressed about his personal sins and mourned over them. He became seriously concerned about the welfare of his soul and so he searched the scripture for information on that topic.

He both marveled and grieved that his acquaintances who belonged to various Christian denominations did not act in accordance with what was found on the pages of the Bible.

His study of the New Testament led him to the conclusion that all the Christian denominations with which he was acquainted had apostatized from the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Joseph pondered the darkness that pervaded the minds of mankind and its resultant wickedness and abominations - and he mourned for the sins of the world.

He also thought about the "contentions and division" among men [see - revival mentioned in the 1832 text].

Joseph believed from his personal observation of created objects and entities that God did indeed exist.

He also believed the scriptures that taught God was an eternal Being who was all powerful and everywhere present, who was no respecter of persons, who was a God of law and did not change over time, and wanted mankind to worship Him in truth.

When Joseph Smith "considered all these things" he prayed to the Lord and received his First Vision.

It is clear from a consultation of the 1832 text that Joseph Smith's desire to be forgiven of his personal sins was NOT the only motivation for his prayer in the wilderness. He prayed (as he explicitly states) because of "all" of the things he mentions - including the desire to worship God in truth; according to His laws (which Joseph did not believe was the case among any of the Christians denominations that he knew of).

Patterns within documents

The 1832 textual pattern of (1) desire to prepare for eternity / worship God in truth and (2) desire for forgiveness of personal sins can be detected in subsequent First Vision recitals, demonstrating that there is no change in his declared motive over time. The confusion of the critics on this issue arises when they do not see exact matches in themes across documents or insist that every detail of the story be present in every text that relates it.

1832 (Smith)

"my mind became seriously impressed with regard to the all important concerns for the welfare of my immortal soul . . . . my mind become excedingly distressed for I became convicted of my sins . . . . when I considered all these things and that that Being seeketh such to worship Him as worship Him in spirit and in truth therefore I cried unto the Lord . . . . He spake unto me saying, 'Joseph my son, thy sins are forgiven thee.'"

1834 (Cowdery/Smith)

Joseph Smith had a "determination to know for himself of the certainty and reality of pure and holy religion . . . . [but he also] call[ed] upon the Lord in secret for a full manifestation of divine approbation, and . . . to have an assurance that he was accepted of Him." Joseph is classified in this text among the "humble, penitent sinner."

1835 (Smith)

"being wrought up in my mind, respecting the subject of religion and looking at the different systems taught the children of men, I knew not who was right or who was wrong and I considered it of the first importance that I should be right . . . being thus perplexed in mind I retired to the silent grove and bowed down before the Lord . . . . He said unto me, 'Thy sins are forgiven thee.'"

1838 (Smith)

" how to act I did not know and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, would never know . . . . My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. . . . many other things did He say unto me which I cannot write at this time" [INDIRECT REFERENCE TO FORGIVENESS OF SINS?]

1840 (Pratt)

"[Joseph] began seriously to reflect upon the necessity of being prepared for a future state of existence; but how, or in what way, to prepare himself , was a question, as yet, undetermined in his own mind. He perceived that it was a question of infinite importance, and that the salvation of his soul depended upon a correct understanding of the same. . . . He was informed that his sins were forgiven"

1842 (Smith)

"I began to reflect upon the importance of being prepared for a future state, and upon enquiring the plan of salvation I found that there was a great clash in religious sentiment . . . . considering that all could not be right, and that God could not be the author of so much confusion, I determined to investigate the subject more fully" [FORGIVENESS OF SINS IS NOT MENTIONED]

1842 (Hyde)

"[Joseph] began seriously to reflect upon the necessity of being prepared for a future state of existence; but how, or in what way to prepare himself , was a question, as yet, undetermined in his own mind; he perceived that it was a question of infinite importance. . . . [The two personages] told him that his prayers had been answered, and that the Lord had decided to grant him a special blessing." [VEILED REFERENCE TO FORGIVENESS OF SINS? - Remember that Hyde utilized information straight from Pratt's account]





Response to claim: "Who appears to him – a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels, the Father and the Son – are all over the place."

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Who appears to him – a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels, the Father and the Son – are all over the place.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Jump to Detail:

Question: By what name did Joseph Smith refer to the First Vision?

Joseph referred to his 1820 theophany as the "first visitation of Angels" or the "first communication"

The spin: The author exaggerates perceived differences in the accounts, when in reality the accounts contain primarily the same core details, with some additional details in specific ones. The only major difference is that the 1832 account mentions one personage ("the Lord") instead of two.The facts: For example, none of the accounts mention that only an angel appeared, although one mentions the presences of "many angels" into the two personages. Joseph referred to his First Vision as the "First Visitation of angels" and Moroni's visit as "another visitation of angels."

Joseph Smith never actually referred to what we now call the "First Vision" by that name. Instead, he referred to it as the "first visitation of angels" or the "first communication." Joseph also referred to Moroni's visit as "another vision of angels."

One critic of Mormonism states that "Who appears to [Joseph] – a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels, the Father and the Son – are all over the place." [21]

Joseph Smith Papers off-site Joseph Smith's 9 November 1835 journal entry, which was written by his scribe, describes a visit of two personages. The scribe then goes back and inserts the phrase "and I saw many angels in this vision" between the lines. Image from "Journal, 1835–1836,"

The account that Joseph entered in his journal on 9 November 1835 was a detailed account which clearly describes two personages, as well as "many angels." The account that Joseph wrote just five days later in his journal on 14 November 1835 was a one line summary of the event, which he described as "the first visitation of Angels." Critics of the Church seem to believe that Joseph completely changed his story from "two personages" to "Angels" over the course of only five days. The truth is that Joseph referred to all of the personages that appeared to him as "angels."

The terms "personages" and "angels" were interchangeable

This confusion regarding "angels" versus "personages" is illustrated in a critical "Mormoninfographic".[22] We have illustrated the error by comparing Joseph's journal entries on both days.





Juncker (1994): "Unknown to many, the early church fathers often referred to Jesus as an Angel....in antiquity the word 'angel' meant 'messenger'"

Günther Juncker (at the time of this writing), Master of Divinity candidate at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School:

Unknown to many, the early church fathers often referred to Jesus as an Angel. And they gave him this appellation long before the (alleged) distortions of Constantine, the Controversies, the Councils, and the Creeds.... the word Angel has a prima facie claim to being a primitive, if not an apostolic, Christological title. Before pronouncing judgement on the Fathers, men who were often quite close to first-century apostles and eyewitnesses, we may recall that in antiquity the word "angel" had a broader semantic range than at present. When we think of angels, we immediately think of super-human, bodiless spirits, all of whom were created and some of whom fell with Satan in his rebellion. But in antiquity the word “angel” meant “messenger.” It was primarily a functional (as opposed to an ontological) description and, thus, could refer to messengers who were human, angelic, or divine (the best known of the latter being Hermes, “the messenger god”). Likewise in Scripture, in both the OT and the NT, the term angel refers to human as well as to angelic messengers.[23]





Joseph Smith: "Jesus Christ became a ministering spirit (while his body was lying in the sepulcher)...After His resurrection He appeared as an angel to His disciples"

Joseph Smith considered a personage with a resurrected body of flesh and bone to be an "angel". This included Jesus Christ:

Jesus Christ became a ministering spirit (while his body was lying in the sepulcher) to the spirits in prison, to fulfill an important part of His mission, without which He could not have perfected His ward, or entered into His rest. After His resurrection He appeared as an angel to His disciples.[24]





Joseph Smith (9 Nov. 1835): "I saw many angels in this vision...I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication"

Joseph Smith's journal (scribe Warren Parrish):

he testifyed unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God; <and I saw many angels in this vision> I was about 14. years old when I received this first communication; When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels, in the night season after I had retired to bed[25]





Joseph Smith (14 Nov. 1835): "I received the first visitation of angels, which was when I was about fourteen years old"

Joseph Smith's journal (scribe Warren Parrish):

up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14, years old and also the the visitations that I received afterward, concerning the book of Mormon[26]





Question: Why does Joseph Smith's 1832 account of the First Vision not mention two personages?

Although the 1832 account does not specifically indicate that the Father appeared, He is mentioned

The theophany portion of the 1832 account does not specifically indicate that the Father appeared to Joseph Smith together with Jesus Christ. The relevant text (in its original form) reads as follows:

"a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day c[a]me down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy <way> walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life <behold> the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not <my> commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which <hath> been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud <clothed> in the glory of my Father."[27] (emphasis added)

Even though the Savior makes a direct reference to the Father there is no indication in this portion of the 1832 document that God appeared to Joseph Smith alongside His Son.

The same pattern exists in the Book of Mormon with Lehi's vision of God on His throne

This type of pattern is seen in the Book of Mormon, translated in 1829: The Book of Mormon begins (1 Nephi 1:8-10) with Lehi's vision of God on His throne. One [Christ] followed by twelve others descends from God to speak with Lehi—thus, Jesus and the Father are here both separate, and the role of Christ in giving instructions to the prophet while the Father looks on and approves is followed, just as it was in Joseph's First Vision. Here too, Lehi is described as praying to "the Lord," and yet has a vision of both God the Father and Christ.





Question: Is there any reference to God the Father being present in Joseph Smith's 1832 account?

A significant phrase in the introductory paragraph is associated with the First Vision: "receiving the testimony from on high"

There is a very significant phrase located in the introductory paragraph of the Prophet's historical narrative. There he indicates that the 1832 document is . . .

"A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr. an account of his marvilous experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Ch[r]ist the son of the living God of whom he beareth record and also an account of the rise of the church of Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brough<t> [it] forth and established [it] by his hand <firstly> he receiving the testamony from on high secondly the ministering of Angels thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel—<—the Law and commandments as they were given unto him—>and the ordinencs, forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God."

This paragraph not only introduces the document with a heavy emphasis on the Son of God but it also chronologically outlines four inaugural events of the Restoration.

FIRST: Reception of "the testimony from on high" - First Vision SECOND: The "ministering of angels" - Moroni visitations THIRD: Reception of the Holy Priesthood to administer the letter of the gospel - Aaronic FOURTH: Reception of the High Priesthood after the order of the Son - Melchizedek

This 1832 phraseology corresponds with the words spoken by God the Father when He introduced His Son in the Sacred Grove

The significant phrase in the introductory paragraph is the one associated with the First Vision -- "receiving the testimony from on high" (spelling standardized). When this phrase is placed in conjunction with the Prophet's 1835 and 1838 accounts of the First Vision it becomes obvious that the 1832 phraseology closely corresponds with the words spoken by God the Father when He introduced His Son in the Sacred Grove.

(1832 ACCOUNT) “firstly . . . receiving the testimony from on high ” (1835 ACCOUNT) “He [God the Father] testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God ” (1838 ACCOUNT) "[He] said... This is my beloved Son ”

The Father's identification of Jesus Christ as His Son was His "testimony" of Him.

Critics have objected that -- in their minds -- the phrase "from on high" cannot be so easily equated with God the Father. But there is a sizable amount of corroborating evidence for this idea. Consider the following points of connection.

3 Ne. 11:3, 5-7 - between April and June 1828

The Father's "voice . . . came out of heaven " [i.e., 'from on high'] and testified of His " Beloved Son ."

D&C 20:16 - April 1830

Joseph Smith stated, "the Lord God has spoken it; and we . . . have heard . . . the words of the glorious Majesty on high ."

Matthew, Mark, Luke, 1 Peter - between 8 March 1831 and 24 March 1832

There are five New Testament scriptures (which Joseph Smith would have been familiar with from his work on the JST) that have distinct parallels to the First Vision story. Jesus Christ's Old World disciples heard the Father's voice come " from heaven " (Mt. 3:17; Mk. 1:11; Lk. 3:22; 2 Pt. 1:17-18) [i.e, 'from on high'] or " out of the cloud " (Mt. 17:5) [i.e., 'from on high'] and in each of these instances the Father testified of His Son and employed the same phraseology that Joseph Smith said He utilized during the First Vision.

JST John 1:18/19 - between 20 November 1831 and 16 February 1832

"And no man hath seen God at any time, except he [i.e., God the Father] hath borne record of the Son ."

1832 First Vision account - between 22 September 1832 and 27 November 1832

"receiving the testimony from on high "

D&C 93:15 - 6 May 1833

Mention is made of the Father's voice being heard " out of heaven ."

Patriarchal Blessing - 9 December 1834

When the Prophet received his Patriarchal Blessing on 9 December 1834 he was reminded by the Patriarch (his father) that during his "youth" he had "heard [God's] voice from on high ."

Joseph Smith appears to have equated the voice "from on high" with God the Father both before and after he penned his 1832 First Vision account

This chronological evidence points to the conclusion that Joseph Smith appears to have equated the voice "from on high" with God the Father both before and after he penned his 1832 First Vision account.

"The Lord opened the heavens and I saw the Lord"

Another line from the 1832 account that may be referring to two people may be this line

I was ﬁlled with the spirit of God, and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord

It has been argued that the seperation of "Lord" into two may be referring to the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Three pieces of evidence can be used to argue for this interpretation.

Evidence #1 - The separation of "Lord" is used in scripture in Psalm 110:1 to refer to two distinct, divine individuals. As John Welch and James Allen have argued, if David can do this, so can Joseph.[28] This connection becomes more plausible when we realize that Joseph would have either recently been working on or completed Psalms in his Inspired Translation of the Bible at this time.

A couple of critics have taken issue with this evidence for the interpretation--claiming that since Psalm 110:1 was originally written in Hebrew with two different words for Lord (rendering "Lord" and "LORD" in all caps for the second mention) that the argument fails.[29]

Latter-day Saint apologist and theologian Robert S. Boylan has responded by showing how Psalm 110:1 is the most quoted, echoed, and/or alluded to passage in the New Testament which Joseph would have been working on revising in his Inspired Translation of the Bible. He then shows that the revelations in Doctrine and Covenants leading up chronologically to the publication of the history containing the 1832 account of Joseph’s vision deliberately echo that verse (Doctrine and Covenants 20:24; 49:5-6; 76: 20, 23). If Joseph were familiar with that verse close to the publication of the account by way of the Old and/or New Testament and as echoed in his revelations published in the Doctrine and Covenants, it seems reasonable to assume that he could have used that verse as a template for rendering his account of events surrounding the First Vision.[30] This is even if one mention is capitalized and the other not. If the structure is deliberate and clear (and it appears so), then it seems odd to be upset that Joseph doesn't use capitals for the second "Lord" he writes about.

Evidence #2 - The successive appearance of personages in other accounts (such as the 1835 account).

The 1832 account may be read to have a successive appearance of personages, one after the other. This is strengthened by the 1835 accounts mention of successive appearance. Further evidence of this in the 1832 account may be that Joseph was "filled with the spirit of God" before he mentions "the Lord".

Evidence #3 - Joseph used "Lord" to refer to God and not just Jesus Christ in the 1832 account.

Some have argued that the 8 uses of Lord in the 1832 account all refer to Jesus Christ.[31] There are at least three references that may be read otherwise:

A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr. an account of his marvilous [sic] experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Christ the son of the living God of whom he beareth record and also an account of the rise of the Church of Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brought forth and established by his hand.

A separation of "Christ" and "the Lord.” This is able to be read with Christ or the Father as the Lord.

My mind became exceedingly distressed, for I became convicted of my sins, and by searching the scriptures 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 was built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.

The mention of Lord and Jesus Christ is tricky to consolidate here. This is best read so as to refer to the Father as the Lord.

The third plausible evidence of God as Lord is the ending of the account:

My soul was ﬁlled with love, and for many days I could rejoice with great joy. The Lord was with me, but I could ﬁnd none that would believe the heavenly vision. Nevertheless, I pondered these things in my heart.

The reference here is vague enough that it cannot be conclusively read one way or the other--especially with the just-cited mention of the Lord.





Question: Why did the Prophet construct the 1832 narrative in a manner such as to exclude explicit mention of the Father's appearance?

Analysis of the 1832 First Vision text reveals that it was deliberately constructed on the framework of many scriptural citations

Since it can be concluded from the above documentary evidence that Joseph Smith did indeed make an oblique reference to the appearance of the Father in his 1832 history the question becomes—Why did the Prophet construct the 1832 narrative in the manner that he did (so as to exclude explicit mention of the Father's appearance)? A careful analysis of the 1832 First Vision text reveals that it was deliberately constructed on the framework of many scriptural citations. The apostle Stephen's view of both the Father and the Son is clearly utilized by the Prophet in one section of the 1832 text but, more importantly, Joseph Smith told the actual theophany portion of this narrative in language that very closely corresponds to the apostle Paul's vision of Jesus Christ (Acts 26:).[32] .

The apostle Paul did not report that he saw the Father alongside the Son

The Father is not explicitly mentioned as making an appearance in the theophany portion of the 1832 First Vision account because Joseph Smith patterned that part of his narrative after the vision of Jesus Christ experienced by the apostle Paul.

Paul did not report that he saw the Father alongside the Son, and so it is logical that this is the reason why Joseph Smith did not explicitly mention the Father's appearance in his text either. The Prophet's strong sense of connection with Paul's visionary experience is referred to by him right in his 1838 First Vision account. The context of this connection is the persecution experienced by both men for speaking publicly about a heavenly manifestation. Joseph Smith relates in his 1838 history that he was informed by a clergyman that his vision was "all of the devil." This piece of information may help to explain why the Prophet chose to couch his first known written account of his vision in heavy biblical language and imagery. He may have hoped that by doing this his story would have a better chance of being accepted amongst a populace that was steeped in biblical content.

Gospel Topics: "There are other, more consistent ways of seeing the evidence."

The Gospel Topics Essay touching on the first vision touches on another way of looking at the evidence. It focuses on the awkward repetition of the word "Lord" and how this may have been Joseph's perhaps uneducated way of stating the order of appearance of the personages.

Embellishment. The second argument frequently made regarding the accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision is that he embellished his story over time. This argument focuses on two details: the number and identity of the heavenly beings Joseph Smith stated that he saw. Joseph’s First Vision accounts describe the heavenly beings with greater detail over time. The 1832 account says, “The Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.” His 1838 account states, “I saw two Personages,” one of whom introduced the other as “My Beloved Son.” As a result, critics have argued that Joseph Smith started out reporting to have seen one being—“the Lord”—and ended up claiming to have seen both the Father and the Son.9 There are other, more consistent ways of seeing the evidence. A basic harmony in the narrative across time must be acknowledged at the outset: three of the four accounts clearly state that two personages appeared to Joseph Smith in the First Vision. The outlier is Joseph Smith’s 1832 account, which can be read to refer to one or two personages. If read to refer to one heavenly being, it would likely be to the personage who forgave his sins. According to later accounts, the first divine personage told Joseph Smith to “hear” the second, Jesus Christ, who then delivered the main message, which included the message of forgiveness.10 Joseph Smith’s 1832 account, then, may have concentrated on Jesus Christ, the bearer of forgiveness. Another way of reading the 1832 account is that Joseph Smith referred to two beings, both of whom he called “Lord.” The embellishment argument hinges on the assumption that the 1832 account describes the appearance of only one divine being. But the 1832 account does not say that only one being appeared. Note that the two references to “Lord” are separated in time: first “the Lord” opens the heavens; then Joseph Smith sees “the Lord.” This reading of the account is consistent with Joseph’s 1835 account, which has one personage appearing first, followed by another soon afterwards. The 1832 account, then, can reasonably be read to mean that Joseph Smith saw one being who then revealed another and that he referred to both of them as “the Lord”: “the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.” Joseph’s increasingly specific descriptions can thus be compellingly read as evidence of increasing insight, accumulating over time, based on experience. In part, the differences between the 1832 account and the later accounts may have something to do with the differences between the written and the spoken word. The 1832 account represents the first time Joseph Smith attempted to write down his history. That same year, he wrote a friend that he felt imprisoned by “paper pen and Ink and a crooked broken scattered and imperfect Language.” He called the written word a “little narrow prison.” The expansiveness of the later accounts is more easily understood and even expected when we recognize that they were likely dictated accounts—an, easy, comfortable medium for Joseph Smith and one that allowed the words to flow more easily.[33]

Read the full article here.

Question: Did any of Joseph's scribes ever say anything about Joseph's story of the vision changing over time?

Joseph's scribe Frederick G. Williams never mentioned anything about Joseph's story "evolving" over time

It is interesting to note that the scribe for the material which directly precedes and follows after the 1832 First Vision narrative - Frederick G. Williams - never mentioned anything about Joseph Smith's story evolving over time and becoming more elaborate with the so-called 'addition' of the Father. Williams was a resident of Quincy, Illinois when the First Vision account which explicitly refers to the Father was published in Nauvoo, Illinois on 1 April 1842. It is known that Williams was with the Prophet in Nauvoo shortly before his death on 10 October 1842 but during the intervening six months there is no known objection by Frederick to the content of the printed text. Why not? Williams was the person who wrote down the words in the introductory remarks of the 1832 document that talk of Joseph Smith receiving "the testimony from on high" during the First Vision. And it is known that Frederick was accompanying four LDS missionaries who, in November 1830, were teaching the citizens of Painesville, Ohio that Joseph Smith had seen "God" personally (see the 1830 statement about seeing "God"). Williams was a member of the First Presidency of the Church on 9 November 1835 when Joseph Smith was teaching a non-Mormon that there were two personages who appeared during the First Vision (see Joseph Smith diary, 9 November 1835). Frederick probably never drew attention to a so-called 'discrepancy' between what Joseph Smith taught in 1832, 1835, 1838, and 1842 because he knew that there wasn't one; he knew that the words of the Father spoken during the vision were referred to right in the text that he had written down in 1832.

Joseph's scribe Oliver Cowdery never mentioned anything about Joseph's story changing

Oliver Cowdery is another person who was in a position to know if the Prophet's First Vision story had changed over time by the addition of the Father. But he never mentioned any such 'discrepancy'. Cowdery had possession of the 1832 First Vision account when he wrote and published a series of Church history letters in December 1834 and February 1835 and so he was fully aware of the explicit mention of Christ's appearance and he also would have known of the introductory remark which refers to "the testimony from on high" being delivered during this event. Cowdery became the Associate or Assistant President of the entire Church on 5 December 1834 (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1653), and thus he would have been in the highest office of Church authority when the Prophet was teaching about one year later that two personages appeared during the First Vision (Joseph Smith diary, 9 November 1835).

Even after both Fredrick G. Williams and Oliver Cowdery became disaffected with Joseph Smith, they never challenged his story of the First Vision

Both Fredrick G. Williams and Oliver Cowdery had reason to feel animosity toward Joseph Smith and the Church since they were both excommunicated in the late 1830's. But neither of these men - even after their reinstatements into full fellowship - ever pointed to any 'creative editing' of the Prophet's First Vision story to sound more impressive and dramatic.





Joseph Smith (1832): "a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above"

Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, pp. 1-6.

a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god [34]





Joseph Smith (9 Nov. 1835): "a pillar of fire appeared above my head...a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame"

a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon me head , and filled me with Joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first [35]





Orson Pratt describes Joseph Smith's First Vision in, A[n] Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, 1840:

[Joseph], at length, saw a very bright and glorious light in the heavens above; which, at first, seemed to be at a considerable distance. He continued praying, while the light appeared to be gradually descending towards him; and, as it drew nearer, it increased in brightness, and magnitude, so that, by the time that it reached the tops of the trees, the whole wilderness, for some distance around, was illuminated in a most glorious and brilliant manner. He expected to have seen the leaves and boughs of the trees consumed, as soon as the light came in contact with them; but, perceiving that it did not produce that effect, he was encouraged with the hopes of being able to endure its presence. It continued descending, slowly, until it rested upon the earth, and he was enveloped in the midst of it. When it first came upon him, it produced a peculiar sensation throughout his whole system; and, immediately, his mind was caught away, from the natural objects with which he was surrounded; and he was enwrapped in a heavenly vision, and saw two glorious personages, who exactly resembled each other in their features or likeness. He was informed, that his sins were forgiven. He was also informed upon the subjects, which had for some time previously agitated his mind, viz.—that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines; and, consequently, that none of them was acknowledged of God, as his church and kingdom. And he was expressly commanded, to go not after them; and he received a promise that the true doctrine—the fulness of the gospel, should, at some future time, be made known to him; after which, the vision withdrew, leaving his mind in a state of calmness and peace, indescribable.[36]





Joseph Smith (1842): "surrounded with a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noon-day"

Joseph Smith, Wentworth letter:

I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision and saw two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features, and likeness, surrounded with a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noon-day.[37]





Response to claim: "Why doesn't FairMormon also include the following accounts in their list showing just how “consistent” all of the First Vision accounts are?"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Why doesn't FairMormon also include the following accounts in their list showing just how “consistent” all of the First Vision accounts are?

1834 First Vision Account from Oliver Cowdery on Wikipedia

Brigham Young (1855), Journal of Discourses Vol. 2, p. 171

Wilford Woodruff (1855), Journal of Discourses Vol. 2, p. 196-197

Heber C. Kimball (1857), Journal of Discourses Vol. 6, p. 29-30

Orson Hyde (1854), Journal of Discourses Vol. 6, p. 335

John Taylor (1863), Journal of Discourses Vol. 10, p. 127

John Taylor (1879) Journal of Discourses Vol. 20, p. 167

George A. Smith (1863), Journal of Discourses, Vol. 12, p. 334

George A. Smith (1869), Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 78 Author's sources:

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: The author distorts the original meaning of the statements and ignores exculpatory historical details to score propaganda points. He also attempts to paint FairMormon as dishonest, implying that they lead readers away from examining the evidence for themselves. Claiming dishonesty on the part of all FairMormon contributors is one of the author's favorite red herrings.The facts: These third-hand accounts by people other than Joseph Smith aren't even nearly as damning as the author may want to assume. Additionally, FairMormon has had these accounts posted on it's website for a long time, since the criticisms associated with these statements date back to at least the 1970s and claims made by Gerald and Sandra Tanner.



Regarding Heber C. Kimball (since we don't have a formal response to this accusation in particular) it is important to remember a few historical details. On 13 August 1857 Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Daniel H. Wells, John Taylor, Willard Richards, and Wilford Woodruff placed several publications in the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple that contained First Vision accounts. They were:

The Pearl of Great Price

Lorenzo Snow, The Voice of Joseph

Orson Pratt, (various tracts)

Franklin D. Richards, Compendium

John Jaques, Catechism for Children

Millennial Star, vol. 14 supplement

Millennial Star, vol. 3

Jump to Detail:

Jump to Subtopic:

: When Oliver Cowdery published his version of the history of the Church in December 1834 and February 1835 he did not include a recital of the First Vision story - thus implying that it was not known among the Saints by that point in time. It is claimed that Cowdery's history contradicts Joseph Smith's later official history by saying that the Prophet's first visionary experience was of the angel Moroni in 1823.





Jump to Subtopic:

: It is claimed either that Brigham never taught about the First Vision, or that he taught that the Lord did not appear to Joseph. Both claims are false.





Jump to Subtopic:





Jump to Subtopic:





Jump to Subtopic:





Jump to Subtopic:





Response to claim: "he still manages to directly contradict himself by reporting “visitation of Angels” as compared to an actual visitation from Deity"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

In this summary account, written by Joseph 15 years after the fact, he still manages to directly contradict himself by reporting “visitation of Angels” as compared to an actual visitation from Deity.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Jump to Detail:

Question: Why did Joseph Smith state the he was visited by two personages and then just five days later say that he was visited by angels?

Joseph's diary was simply summarizing the First Vision as the "first visitation of Angels"

The mistake: There is no contradiction. Joseph's journal entry was summarizing an event that he had described in detail in his journal only five days earlier, which clearly stated that there were two personages and "many angels."The facts: Just five days prior to calling the First Vision the "first visitation of Angels," Joseph described a vision which included two personages (Deity, being the Father and the Son, inferred by the introduction "this is my beloved Son") and "many angels." He named this entire encounter the "first visitation of Angels."

Joseph had described his vision in detail in his journal just five days earlier (9 November 1835) when he described his visit with "Joshua the Jewish Minister." When he described his visit with Erastus Holmes, he simply referred to it as the "first visitation of Angels." In Joseph's 9 November 1835 entry, in addition to seeing two personages, Joseph also mentioned that he had seen "many angels" in the vision.

Critics attempt to use this to show inconsistency in Joseph's accounts of the First Vision. For example, a critical graphic indicates that the 1835 "Erastus Holmes" account describes a different vision. The graphic implies that he didn't mention every other element of the vision, and that this makes it inconsistent. However, Joseph was simply offering a one-line summary of the event that he had described only five days earlier in his journal.





Response to claim: "Joseph intended the exact wording to be 'pillar of light' – not 'pillar of fire'"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

By using the “Delete” button of his time along with inserting “light” to immediately replace “fire,” Joseph intended the exact wording to be “pillar of light” – not “pillar of fire.”

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Jump to Detail:

Logical Fallacy: Special Pleading—The author creates a one-sided argument by including favorable data and excluding unfavorable data through improper means. In this case, the author "moved the goalpost" by changing his argument when his original claim was shown to be false.

Question: Why did Joseph mention a "pillar of light" in his 1832 account, but a "pillar of fire" in his 1835 account of the First Vision?

Joseph Smith's 1832 account mentions a "pillar of fire," which he then crossed out to replace with "a pillar of light"

The mistake: The "mormoninfographic" uses the fact that the word "fire" does not appear in the final draft to demonstrate a perceived inconsistency with Joseph's 1835 account, which used the term "pillar of fire." This is nonsense, since it is obvious from the 1832 strikeout that Joseph was trying to decide which of the two terms "fire" or "light" best described what he saw.The facts: It is obvious that Joseph was willing to describe the pillar as either "fire" or "light." The "mormoninfographic" obscures that fact.The "mormoninfographic" claimed that the word "fire" was not part of the 1832 account. We demonstrated that it was. Whether or not it was crossed out is irrelevant - it is there, it is readable, and it is indicative of what Joseph was thinking as he wrote. However, this isn't what the CES Letter author is responding to: He instead appears to be claiming that we are disputing what Josephto write. The reality is that Joseph wrotewords in his history as he was attempting to decide which one provided a more accurate description. Because the CES Letter author failed to debunk our original claim, he instead decided to respond to one that we never made.

Joseph did indeed dictate "pillar of fire" in his 1832 journal account. He then crossed out the word "fire" and wrote "light." Therefore Joseph wrote both "pillar of fire" and "pillar of light."

Joseph was not certain of how to describe the light that he saw, characterizing it as both "fire" and "light." Orson Pratt, in his 1840 pamphlet "A[n] Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions," wrote of a "very bright and glorious light" which descended, yet he gave it the characteristics of "fire" when he noted that Joseph "expected to have seen the leaves and boughs of the trees consumed, as soon as the light came in contact with them."

[Joseph], at length, saw a very bright and glorious light in the heavens above; which, at first, seemed to be at a considerable distance. He continued praying, while the light appeared to be gradually descending towards him; and, as it drew nearer, it increased in brightness, and magnitude, so that, by the time that it reached the tops of the trees, the whole wilderness, for some distance around, was illuminated in a most glorious and brilliant manner. He expected to have seen the leaves and boughs of the trees consumed, as soon as the light came in contact with them; but, perceiving that it did not produce that effect, he was encouraged with the hopes of being able to endure its presence. It continued descending, slowly, until it rested upon the earth, and he was enveloped in the midst of it. When it first came upon him, it produced a peculiar sensation throughout his whole system. [38]

Some critics of the Church wish to portray "pillar of light" or "pillar of fire" as a discrepancy between accounts

The is no discrepancy here: Joseph wrote "pillar of fire" in his 1832 account, and then crossed out the word "fire" and replaced it with "light." In his 9 November 1835 account, he states "a pillar of fire." In the canonized 1838 account, he describes it as a "pillar of light." The fact that in 1832 Joseph ultimately decided to write "pillar of light" does not negate the fact that Joseph originally wrote the words "pillar of fire" in his record. Some critics has attempted to show a discrepancy between the 1832 account and later accounts by pointing out that Joseph wrote "pillar of light." For example, the following critical graphic incorrectly represents the 1832 account.





Response to claim: "FairMormon is arguing here that Joseph Smith did not in fact see God the Father and his son Jesus Christ, which is an apostate view"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

FairMormon is arguing here that Joseph Smith did not in fact see God the Father and his son Jesus Christ, which is an apostate view given that the recently published LDS.org essay titled “First Vision Accounts” states otherwise: Joseph Smith recorded that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him… So, which is it? Did Joseph see God the Father and Jesus Christ or did he merely see two angelic personages?

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

The falsehood: The author states that FairMormon claims something that is absolutely false.The facts: We will restate FairMormon's position:

1) The statement by the CES Letter author that "FairMormon is arguing here that Joseph Smith did not in fact see God the Father and his son Jesus Christ" is absolutely and totally false.

2) Joseph Smith never used the words "Jesus Christ" and "God the Father" in any of his accounts of the First Vision. In the 1832 account, he said that he saw "the Lord." These are facts.

3) Joseph always described the Father and the Son as "personages." The statement of one personage to Joseph that "this is my Beloved Son" while gesturing to the other clearly indicates that these personages are God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ, even if Joseph did not explicitly name them as such in his First Vision account.

4) Many prophets after Joseph Smith have clearly identified the two personages as the Father and the Son. John Taylor in particular was very vocal about this.

Jump to Detail:

Logical Fallacy: Strawman—The author sets up a weakened or caricatured version of the opponent's argument. The author then proceeds to demolish the weak version of the argument, and claim victory.

Question: Did the actual words "God the Father" and "Jesus Christ" appear in Joseph's 1838 account of the First Vision?

Joseph Smith only referred to God the Father and Jesus Christ as "personages" in the 1838 account - their actual identities as Father and Son are only confirmed when one identifies the other as his "beloved Son"

FairMormon's position is, always has been, and always will be that Joseph Smith saw two divine personages: God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. The author apparently misunderstood the original claim. The question with regard to the "mormoninfographic" is "Did the actual"God the Father" and "Jesus Christ" appear in Joseph's 1838 account of the First Vision?" while the CES Letter author responds to a question that was never asked: "Did God the Father and Jesus Christ appear in Joseph's 1838 account of the First Vision?" He then creates a strawman to misrepresent FairMormon's position regarding the appearance of the Father and Son during the First Vision, and then "debunks" his own strawman.

Many Church leaders, such as John Taylor, repeatedly talked of Joseph being visited by the Father and the Son. However, when Joseph refers to them in the 1838 account, he only refers to them as two "personages," one of whom introduces the other as his "beloved Son." This clearly infers the identity of the two personages as the Father and the Son.

However, some critics of the Church assume that Joseph explicitly named the personages as the Father and the Son. One good example of such an assumption is a "mormoninfographic" that, in its effort to illustrate contradictions between Joseph's account of the First Vision, erroneously indicates that the words "God the Father" and "Jesus Christ" actually appear in Joseph's 1838 account. This is for the purpose of contrasting the lack of mention of the Father and the Son by name in the 1835 account.

When challenged on this error, the author of the graphic said regarding the 1835 account: "you seem to be suggesting that I should depict something other than what is in the written record. There's nothing in the 1835 account that would indicate God or Jesus only what you are inferring from other accounts." [39] Indeed, there is no explicit mention of God the Father and Jesus Christ in the 1835 account, but Joseph reports that one of the personages that appeared "testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

The only way to identify the personages in the 1838 account as Father and Son is to use an external source: The Holy Bible contains the phrase "this is my beloved Son"

So, where in the 1838 written record do the names "God the Father" and "Jesus Christ" appear? Nowhere: in the 1838 account Joseph refers to them as "personages." Yet, the author of the graphic "check marked" two items that are not present in the written record.

We agree that that "This is my beloved son" implies that the personages are God the Father and Jesus Christ, but the only way to infer that is to look at something that is not in the written (1838) record - you have to use the Bible (the account of Jesus' baptism) to make the connection. Therefore, allowing an additional record to be used to clarify Joseph's written words from 1838 violates the author's own rules: He won't allow Joseph's words from the other accounts to used to to clarify, yet he allows the Bible to be used to clarify.





Response to claim: "the Church altered Joseph's words to instead read "I received my First Vision...” in the History of the Church"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

his 1835 account was falsified into the History of the Church (Vol. 2, Ch. 23, p.312). Despite correctly being published in the Church newspaper (Deseret News, Vol.2, No. 15, Saturday, May 29, 1852) as specifically including Joseph's words, "I received the first visitation of Angels,” the Church altered Joseph's words to instead read "I received my First Vision...” in the History of the Church.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Jump to Detail:

Joseph Smith (9 Nov. 1835): "a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame...another personage soon appeard like unto the first...and I saw many angels in this vision"

I kneeled again my mouth was opened and my toung liberated, and I called on the Lord in mighty prayer, a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon me head , and filled me with Joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; and I saw many angels in this vision I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication; [40]

The mistake: Joseph's 9 November 1835 journal entry recorded that he saw two personages accompanied by many angels. His summary description just five days later on 14 November 1835 referred to the entire event as the "first visitation of Angels." How exactly is that inconsistent? Joseph simply assigned his own name to the event.The facts: When B.H. Roberts wrote, he chose to assign a different name to Joseph's theophany. Roberts wanted something different than the "first visitation of Angels," and he instead chose to call the event the "First Vision." Roberts did not choose to call it the "first visitation" or the "visitation of two personages and a lot of angels": He simply chose to call the event the first of Joseph's visions, because that's exactly what it was. This wasn't an attempt to hide the nature of who had appeared to Joseph during the vision.





Joseph Smith (14 Nov. 1835): "I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14"

I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old and also the visitations that I received afterward, concerning the book of Mormon [41]





Question: What are the two 1835 First Vision accounts that refer to angels?

Joseph Smith's two 1835 accounts of the First Vision

Two of Joseph Smith's November 1835 diary entries make reference to the First Vision:

November 9, 1835

a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon me head , and filled me with Joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testifyed unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; <and I saw many angels in this vision> I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication; When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels in the night season after I had retired to bed.[42]

Note that the additional detail that there were "many angels" was inserted into the text as a clarification. This is the only account which mentions other personages in the vision other than the Father and Son.

November 14, 1835

I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14.[43]





Question: Why does Joseph Smith's 9 November 1835 account of the First Vision mention "many angels?"

Criticisms related to Joseph Smith's 9 November 1835 account of the First Vision

The capitalized word "Angels" in Joseph Smith's diary entry for 14 November 1835 has given rise to two distinct criticisms by detractors of the faith, and one misguided conclusion by some Latter-day Saints.

Criticism #1 - Critics note that this word is plainly used in reference to the First Vision and thus assume that Joseph Smith did not consistently claim to see Deity during this manifestation and that he therefore contradicted himself. Criticism #2 - Critics conclude that the official History of the Church was "falsified" when this reference was changed without any notation. Misguided Conclusion - Some conclude that since the word "Angels" is capitalized in the text Joseph Smith must have been applying this title to Deity.

Both the two personages and "many angels" are mentioned

The mention of "many angels" in the November 9, 1835 diary entry is a clarifying detail. The appearance of the Father and Son are clearly referenced separately from the mention of the "many angels." Since the visit of the Father and Son are acknowledged in the diary entry for the 9th the change from "first visitation of Angels" to "the First Vision" in the History of the Church entry is not a "falsification" of information.





Question: Does the use of the capitalized word "Angel" in the 14 November 1835 account refer to Deity?

The capitalized "Angel" may be used to refer to Deity, but not exclusively

The examples of the usage of the words "angel" and "Angel" clearly show that, although the capitalized version of the word can be used to refer to Deity, it is not exclusively used in this manner.

An examination of the adjoining sentences in the 9 November 1835 account (original source document) reveals that within a very short space Warren Parish thrice used the capitalized word “Angel” to refer to Moroni. Therefore, the capitalized “Angels” of the 14 November 1835 statement - which was also penned by Warren Parish - cannot be exclusively applied to Deity.

It should also be noted that one of Joseph Smith’s other contemporaneous scribes (Frederick G. Williams) regularly used the capitalized words “Angel” and “Angels” to refer to celestial beings other than Deity. And on at least one occasion Joseph Smith himself used the capitalized word “Angels” to do the same (see below).

31 July 1832 [handwriting of Frederick G. Williams]

"God is rem[em]bering mercy unto us and making us mighty to the pulling down the strong hold of Satan, having sent down the Angel of God to trouble the waters"

September–November 1832 [handwriting of Frederick G. Williams]

"seccondly the ministering of Angels "

4 January 1833 [handwriting of Frederick G. Williams]

"The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western Tribes of Indians, having been found through the ministration of an holy Angel translated into our own Language by the gift and power of God"

19 December 1833 [handwriting of Frederick G. Williams]

"This day Bro William Pratt and David Pattin took their Journey to the Land of Zion for the purpose of bearing dispatches to the Brethren in that place from Kirtland O may God grant it a blessing for Zion as a kind Angel from heaven Amen"

16 August 1834 [handwriting of Frederick G. Williams]

"was met in the face and eyes as soon as I had got home with a catalogue that was as black as the author himself and the cry was Tyrant,! Pope!! King!!! Usurper!!!! Abuser of men!!!!! Ange[l] !!!!!! False prophet!!!!! Prophecying Lies in the name of the Lord and taking consecrated monies!!!!!!! and every other lie to fill up and complete the cattelogue that was necissary to perfect the Church to be meet for the devourer the shaft of the devouring <destroying> Angel ! . . . . when the church lifts up the head the Angel will bring us good tidings even so Amen"

7 October 1835 [handwriting of Frederick G. Williams]

"according to the measure that he meeteth out with a liberal hand unto the poor so shall it be measured to him again by the hand of his God even an hundred fold Angels shall guard <his> house and shall guard the lives of his posterity"

29 October 1835 [handwriting of Warren Parish]

"I then set down and taught <related to> them the history of the coming forth of the book the administration of the Angel to me"

9 November 1835 [handwriting of Warren Parish]

"I saw many angels in this vision. I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication; When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels in the night season . . . . an angel appeared before me . . . . the angel appeard to me again . . . . the Angel came to me again and commanded me to go and tell my Father, what I had seen and heard, I did so, he wept and told me that it was a vision from God to attend to it I went and found the place, where the plates were, according to the direction of the Angel , also saw them, and the angel as before; the powers of darkness strove hard against me. I called on God, the Angel told me that the reason why I could not obtain the plates at this time was because I was under transgression"

14 November 1835 [handwriting of Warren Parish]

"I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14 years old"

16 November 1835 [handwriting of Frederick G. Williams]

"O ye Angels ! that surround the throne, <of God> Princes of heaven, that excell in strength, ye who are clothed with transcendant brightness"

29 March 1838 [handwriting of George W. Robinson]

"chariot of fire came and near the place and the Angel of the Lord put forth his hand unto Br. Marks & said unto him thou art my son come here"

2 May 1838 [handwriting of James Mullholland]

"I answered that an Angel of God had revealed it unto him. He then said to me, let me see that certificate"

21 March 1839 [handwriting of Alexander McRae and Caleb Baldwin]

"which our fathers have wa[i]ted with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times which their minds were pointed to by the Angels as held in reserve for the fullness of their glory"

4 April 1839 [handwriting of Joseph Smith]

"With immotions known only to God, do I write this letter, the contemplations, of the mind under these circumstances, defies the pen, or tounge, or Angels , to discribe, or paint, to the human mind"

16, 23 August 1842 [handwriting of William Clayton]

"I say it by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, and by the ministering of Holy Angels , and by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost. . . . sound of the Arch- Angels trump"

[These texts can be found in Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, revised edition]





Question: Does the 14 November 1835 account reference to the "first vision of Angels" mean that Joseph Smith did not see Deity?

It is patently absurd to believe that Joseph Smith would contradict himself in less than one week while telling the same exact story in front of the same exact scribe

It is patently absurd to believe that Joseph Smith would contradict himself in less than one week while telling the same exact story in front of the same exact scribe (Warren Parrish). A careful examination of the diary entries for the 9th and 14th of November indicates that the "Angels" of the 14th are the very same "angels" mentioned on the 9th. The "angels" referred to on the 9th are definitely IN ADDITION TO the two main personages who appeared - the text says quite specifically that the angels "also" made an appearance on this occasion. Joseph Smith is not contradicting himself but is rather providing an additional detail about the event he is describing.





Question: Was the History of the Church falsified when "first visitation of Angels" was changed to "my first vision"?

Joseph's 14 November 1835 diary entry morphs as it is copied into subsequent records

The 14 November 1835 First Vision diary reference is connected with an interview that the Prophet conducted with an investigator named Erastus Holmes. Notice that the diary entry morphs as it is copied into subsequent records.

"I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old and also the the visitations that I received afterward, concerning the book of Mormon, and a short account of the rise and progress of the church, up to this, date" (Joseph Smith diary, 14 November 1835, pp. 36-37).

"He (Smith) commenced and gave him a brief relation of his experience while in his youthful days, say from the age of six years up to the time he received the first visitation of Angels which was when he was about 14 years old. He also gave him an account of the revelations he had afterward received concerning the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and a succinct account of the rise and progress of the church up to this date" (“History, 1834–1836,” Book A-1, p. 129).

"I gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from six years old up to the time I received the first visitation of angels, which was when I was about fourteen years old; also the revelations that I received afterwards concerning the Book of Mormon, and a short account of the rise and progress of the church up to this date" (Deseret News, vol. 2, no. 15, 29 May 1852).

"I gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from six years old up to the time I received the first visitation of angels, which was when I was about fourteen years old; also the revelations that I received afterwards concerning the Book of Mormon, and a short account of the rise and progress of the church up to this date" (Millennial Star, vol. 15, no. 27, 2 July 1853, 424 - from the Deseret News).

"I gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from six years old up to the time I received my first vision, which was when I was about fourteen years old; also the revelations that I received afterwards concerning the Book of Mormon, and a short account of the rise and progress of the Church up to this date" (History of the Church, 2:312; written between 1902-1912).

It 