Detailed response to CES Letter, First Vision

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Response to "First Vision Concerns & Questions"

[[../Book of Mormon Translation Concerns & Questions|Book of Mormon Translation Concerns & Questions]]

A FAIR Analysis of: [[../|Letter to a CES Director]]

[[../Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions|Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions]]

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.

—Gordon B. Hinckley, “God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear,” Ensign, Oct 1984, 2 off-site

∗       ∗       ∗

Quick Navigation

• Response to section: "There are at least 4 different First Vision accounts by Joseph Smith"
• Response to section: "The dates / his ages are all over the place"
• Response to section: "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"
• Response to section: "Who appears to him – a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels, the Father and the Son – are all over the place."
• Response to section: "The historical record shows that there was no revival in Palmyra in 1820"
• Response to section: "Why did Joseph hold a Trinitarian view of the Godhead, as shown previously with the Book of Mormon, if he clearly saw that the Father and Son were separate embodied beings in the official First Vision?"
• Response to section: "There is absolutely no record of a First Vision prior to 1832"
• Response to section: "In the 1832 account, Joseph said that before praying he knew that there was no true or living faith or denomination upon the earth"

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

LDS-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision (2004-Present)

2009 Matthew B. Brown. A Pillar of Light: The History and Message of the First Vision (American Fork, Utah, Covenant Communications (2009). The relevant documents are published in Appendix 1 (178-194). The entire volume is a discussion of these versions.

2008 Elder W. Craig Zwick, “We will not Yield, We Cannot Yield,” General Conference April 2008, Ensign (May 2008): 97-99. Quotes from both the canonized version and the Wentworth letter (97).

2007 The manual, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (2007) cites:1838-9 version, throughout chapter 1, on First Vision; see page 35, note 4, which reads, in part: “On several occasions the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote or dictated detailed accounts of the First Vision. Quotations in this chapter are from the First Vision account first published in 1842 in ‘History of Joseph Smith,’ Times and Seasons, Mar. 15, 1842, pp. 726-8, Apr. 1, 18452, pp. 748-9, and later included in the Pearl of Great Price and published in the History of the Church, vol. 1, pp. 1-8. The Prophet Joseph Smith prepared this account in 1838 and 1839 with the help of his scribes.” The same manual also cites 1832 version page 2-3, 3; 28 [which was never published by the prophet; lost till 1965] It also cites the Wentworth letter on pages 5, 6, first published TS March 1, 1842

2006 Matthew B. Brown, Prophecies. Signs of the Times, Second Coming, Millennium (American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, 2006): 1. “… in the spring of 1820, he viewed something that is rarely repeated and little understood: he saw a group of ‘many angels’” (1, citing Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (1984): 75-6 [=November 9, 1835]). The account then records the words of the Savior to Joseph: “’Mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them according to their ungodliness and to bring to pass that which hath been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and apostles. Behold and lo I come quickly, as it is written of me, in the cloud clothed in the glory of my Father.” (1; the footnote reads: “This account of the words spoken by the Savior during the First Vision is written in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s own hand. These words were recorded in 1832” (5, note 2, citing Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, 6)

2006 Tad R. Callister, The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration (Deseret Book 2006). He quotes from the canonized version, and also from Dan Jones’ 1846 account, translated from the original Welsh and published in 2001 by Ronald Dennis, Dan Jones, History of Latter-day Saints (BYU 2001). (340-1)

2006 Kelly Ogden and Andrew Skinner, The Four Gospels. Verse by Verse (Deseret Book. 2006). Paraphrases the 1838 version, page 344-5; paraphrases the Wentworth letter, page 380.

2005 W. Jeffrey Marsh, The Eyewitness History of the Church. Volume One. The Restoration (Springville, Utah: CFI, 2005): 81-99. “Only a small number of first-hand accounts of the First Vision exist. Of the ten described below, four were penned by the Prophet Joseph himself or dictated to a scribe (the 1832, 1835, 1838, and 1842 [Wentworth] accounts). The other six were written by those who heard him relate his experience, either in a sermon or in a private interview (two accounts from Orson Pratt and one each from Orson Hyde, Levi Richards, David Nye White [Pittsburgh Gazette], and Alexander Neibaur)” (82). He also identifies a sermon by Orson Pratt delivered in 1869 [Journal of Discourses 12. 353-5] (98-99). All of these accounts are published in full.

2005 Larry C. Porter, “The Youth of the Grove and the Prophet of the Restoration,” in Joseph. Exploring the Life and Ministry of the Prophet. Edited by Susan Easton Black and Andrew C. Skinner (Deseret Book 2005):36-46. “Over a succession of years, the Prophet described to varied audiences the circumstances associated with the First Vision. These contemporary accounts were sometimes dictated to scribes, recorded by the press, or preserved in the writings of individuals who heard his recounting of the event. From their content we are able to assemble an invaluable array of details that help us to assess the immediate circumstances associated with the vision and the long-range significance of this singular moment. It is most doubtful that a young man in his fifteenth year could fully comprehend the meaning of what he had just seen, and it was likewise most improbable that he would have been able to analyze the ultimate implications of that which he had witnessed. With the passage of time, however, the Prophet attained an undeniable comprehension of the nature of God and his interaction with man. This understanding caused him to alter his own life in compliance to the will of the Master” (41) He quotes or cites 1832, November 9, 1835, Oliver Cowdery in 1834, 1840 (Orson Pratt), the 1843 Pittsburgh Gazette, William Smith from 1883 and 1894; as well as John Taylor in JD 21. 161. He also quotes the Dec. 1842 emendations by Willard Richards (41, citing Dean Jessee, Papers of Joseph Smith, volume 1. 273, note 1)

2005 Milton V. Backman, Jr., “Continuing the Program of the Prophet”, in Joseph Smith and the Doctrinal Restoration. The 34th Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium (Deseret Book 2005): 34-45. “Based on records that have survived, Joseph Smith’s personal involvement in writing history began in November 1832 when he commenced an autobiography that he wrote partly with his own pen and dictated other portions to his clerk, Frederick G. Williams….He also wrote an account of his First Vision in this manuscript, which is the only account of that vision in his own handwriting” (35). “Although the 1832 autobiography was not published during the life of Joseph Smith, concepts included in that recorded were included in a missionary pamphlet published by Orson Pratt in 1840. This pamphlet, entitled ‘An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions,’ was based upon information that Elder Pratt had learned from Joseph Smith and was the first publication by a Latter-day Saint of the Prophet’s First Vision” (35-6) Backman points out that portions of Orson Pratt’s pamphlet “were included in Joseph Smith’s Wentworth Letter”, published in March 1, 1842 (36). Cites 1838 history (40)

2005 Guy Dorius, “’Now This Caused us to Marvel’: The Breadth of God’s Heaven and the Depth of His Mercy”, in Joseph Smith and the Doctrinal Restoration. The 34th Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium (Deseret Book 2005): 144-156. “Of some eight contemporary accounts of the First Vision, five of them reveal that Joseph had a concern for the state of his soul and his future status, and that he longed for a forgiveness of his sins” (147). “Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve commented on this fact after studying different versions of the vision: ‘I read an account that I had not seen before in which he emphasized that he went to the grove, not simply to know which church to join. In fact, in that particular account, that’s hardly mentioned. It was that he felt overcome by the need to be forgiven and to have his sins washed away and a sense that there was no way he knew how to do that. In the visitation, he was told that his sins were forgiven’” (147, citing “the transcript of remarks made at the unveiling of The Vision statue in the Joseph Smith Building, Brigham Young University, on October 17, 1997” (156, note 10). Cites William Smith, 1893 (148) He refers his readers to Backman, “Awakenings …. “ BYU Studies 1969 and James Allen, “Eight Contemporary Accounts….” Improvement Era 1970.

2005 Stephen C. Harper, “On the Eve of the First Vision,” in Joseph. Exploring the Life and Ministry of the Prophet. Edited by Susan Easton Black and Andrew C. Skinner (Deseret Book 2005): 28-35. He cites William Smith account of 1883; Lucy Mack Smith’s account, and the New York Spectator of 1843.

2005 Dean Jessee, “The Earliest Documents Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,’ in Opening the Heavens. Accounts of Divine Manifestations. 1820-1844, edited by John W. Welch (Deseret Book and BYU, 2005): 1-33.

2005 James B. Allen and John W. Welch, “The Appearance of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith in 1820”, in Opening the Heavens. Accounts of Divine Manifestations. 1820-1844, edited by John W. Welch (Deseret Book and BYU, 2005): 35-75.

2005 Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith. Rough Stone Rolling. A Cultural Biography of Mormonism’s Founder (New York: Alfred E. Knopf 2005): 35-41.

2005 The LDS Church website Josephsmith.net was announced in the Ensign October 2005: 78; full discussion, Ensign (October 2006): 46-9. Website includes references to the following First Vision accounts: 1832, 1842 (Wentworth Letter), 1840 (Orson Pratt), 1851 (Pearl of Great Price).

CHURCH INSTITUTE MANUAL - Church History in the Fulness of Times—Joseph Smith; Chapter Three, The First Vision

http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/ChrchHstryInst32502000/Chapters/ChrchHstryInst32502000_06.pdf

2005 Ronald O. Barney, “The First Vision. Searching for the Truth”, Ensign (January 2005): 14-19. “During the lifetime of the Prophet Joseph Smith, the story of his First Vision was told in print several times, by him (in 1832, 1835, 1838–39, and 1842), or by others who had heard his account and retold it (in 1840, 1842, 1843, and 1844). All originals of the Prophet’s accounts are located in the Joseph Smith Papers, Archives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Photocopies or transcripts of the Prophet’s originals appear in The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, ed. Dean C. Jessee (2002).” (18, note 2). He also quotes from Lucy Mack Smith (1853), but not in reference to the first vision, but rather to his meditative state as a child.

2004 Robert L. Millet, Getting at the Truth Responding to Difficult Questions about LDS Beliefs (Salt Lake City, Utah Deseret Book Company 2004), 143-45. “3. Aren't there differences in detail between the varying accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision? There are several accounts of Joseph Smith's first vision, four of which were dictated by him. These four accounts were recorded in 1832, 1835, 1838 (the canonized account contained in the Pearl of Great Price), and 1842 (from the Wentworth Letter). The few differences between the accounts are minute and in most cases reflect a variation in tone or intent dependent upon the audience.” Millet then quotes the passage from Anderson, “Parallel Prophets” (1985).

2004 David Whittaker, “Orson Pratt’s [An] Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions: A Seminal Scottish Imprint in Early Mormon History”, Mormon Historical Studies 5.2 (Fall 2004): 79-100. “Prior to Orson Pratt’s Edinburgh pamphlet, [1840] the account had not appeared in print, although there were at least three earlier manuscript accounts of it”. The footnote to this lists the 1832, and Nov. 9, 1835 accounts. Whittaker also refers his readers to Dean Jessee, ‘Early Accounts (1969); James Allen “The Significance…” (1966); James Allen “Emergence…” (1980); Milt Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1980); James Allen “Eight Contemporary Accounts…” Improvement Era (1970); Alexander Baugh, ‘Parting the Veil” BYU Studies (1999). He also refers to “tantalizing references to early visions through oral presentations by Joseph Smith before 1840”, citing letters by W.W. Phelps in 1835, and Parley Pratt in 1836.

2014 "First Vision Accounts," Gospel Topics, LDS.org off-site

LDS-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision (1998-2003)

2003 Mark L. McConkie, Remembering Joseph. Personal Recollections of Those Who Know the Prophet Joseph Smith (Deseret Book Company. Salt Lake City, Utah. 2003) “Joseph Smith gave several accounts of the vision during his lifetime, and several contemporary accounts were also produced before the Prophet's death. The picture painted by these additional, secondhand accounts helps us to see that Joseph told the story of his experience in the grove much more than had previously been imagined. The pattern that emerges is one of constant retelling of the First Vision and of Joseph deliberately using it as an aid to missionary work” (17). McConkie includes several late reminiscences (307-313)

2002 Glen M. Leonard, Nauvoo. A Place of Peace, a People of Promise (Deseret Book 2002). “While advising others on relocating at Commerce [soon to be renamed as Nauvoo] and conducting other church business, the Prophet found time on June 11 [1839] to sit down with his clerk, James Mulholland. On that day, Joseph Smith began a regular process of dictating his personal history, beginning with his youthful search for salvation in upstate New York” (57-8) In the footnote to this statement Leonard cites The Papers of Joseph Smith, ed. Dean C. Jessee, both volume 1.230-31, 265, 267 [editorial notes to the documents used]; and volume 2. 233, 321 [these two related to beginning dictation]. Leonard discusses the writing of the history on page 239.

2002 Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith revised 2nd edition.(Salt Lake City: Deseret Book 2002). Contains letters and journals. Journals include 1832, 1835, 1838 versions; Wentworth letter reproduced here.

2001 Kent P. Jackson, The Restored Gospel and the Book of Genesis (Deseret Book 2001). “The Prophet attempted to provide context for the revelations by beginning the compilation of what was called then the ‘History of Joseph Smith.’ He commenced it in 1838 by dictating an account of his early experiences…. The history was compiled by him and his clerks from available sources, including his memory, his journals, and the records of others. The publication began in 1842, with installments appearing periodically in the Church’s newspaper, the Times and Seasons. At the Prophet’s death, the history had been compiled to 1838 but was published only to 1831. The work continued, both in Nauvoo and eventually in Utah, where installments were published in the Deseret News until 1858. Decades later, Elder B. H. Roberts compiled the history into six volumes, refining it with his own careful editorial hand. It was published as History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by Joseph Smith [beginning in 1902]” (59). In a footnote Jackson writes: “The earliest narratives are found in Dean Jessee”, The Papers of Joseph Smith volume 1 (Deseret Book 1989), and Jessee, ‘The Writing of Joseph Smith’s History,’ BYU Studies 11. 3 (Spring 1971): 439-73.

2001 Kent Jackson, sv. “Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions” in Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History, Donald Q. Cannon, Richard Cowan, Arnold K. Garr, editors (Deseret Book 2001). “… the most important aspect of Elder Pratt's booklet is that it presents the earliest published account of Joseph Smith's First Vision. The tract was later republished with minor changes in the United States and in Europe.

2001 Donald Q. Cannon sv Orson Pratt, in Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History Donald Q. Cannon, Richard Cowan, Arnold K. Garr, editors (Deseret Book 2001). Between 1839 and 1841 Elder Pratt served in the highly successful mission of the Twelve to Britain. In 1840 in Edinburgh he published his first missionary pamphlet, entitled Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, which included one of the earliest published accounts of the First Vision.

2001 Milton V. Backman, Jr. sv. First Vision, in Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History Donald Q. Cannon, Richard Cowan, Arnold K. Garr, editors (Deseret Book 2001). “On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his First Vision. They were prepared at different times, under different circumstances, for different audiences, and for different purposes. Therefore, these accounts emphasize different aspects of Joseph's experience. The Prophet never prepared a complete account describing everything he learned during this vision. In his most descriptive version, an account written in 1838 and included in the Pearl of Great Price, he declared, "Many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time" (JS-H 1:20). By examining all these accounts, one can gain a more complete understanding of who appeared to Joseph Smith, as well as the message that unfolded in 1820 (Backman, Appendix A-D). Joseph Smith also related his experience to early converts and to nonmembers of the Church, who wrote accounts of the First Vision based on what they had learned from him. Although these contemporary accounts substantiate Joseph Smith's testimony, they do not include any major concepts not found in versions prepared by the Prophet (Backman, Appendix E-J). Citing Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1980) Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith (1989)

2000 Bruce L. Olsen, “‘Out of Obscurity and Out of Darkness’,” Ensign, Jan 2000, 44-9. Orson Pratt’s “essay An Interesting Account, published in 1840, was the first publication containing the story of the First Vision.” (46)

2000 Revelations of the Restoration. A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations. Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler (Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah: 2000). After quoting from the canonized version, they write “In an earlier account of his formative years…” (1832). They also cite Neibaur (1844); Wentworth (1842) (5-6). Wentworth is also repeated at 1003, along with a reference to the Rupp version (1844). William Smith 1894 account (8); Orson Hyde 1842 (9); “Orson Pratt wrote the earliest published account of the First Vision in 1840” (10). Later in the volume, when discussing the Wentworth Letter, the authors write: “It is a significant guide to those involved in missionary work that the Prophet in telling the story and teaching the doctrines of the Restoration chooses to begin with what we have come to call the First Vision. Evidence suggests that this was his pattern. At present we have nine contemporary reports of his doing so. As the circumstances in which the story was told were different, so his telling of the story differs in length and detail. As would be expected, the richest view of what he experienced is obtained by a careful reading of each of these accounts. In order they are (1) An account apparently in the handwriting of John Whitmer, then the Church historian. This 1832 account indicates that the search that led Joseph Smith to the Sacred Grove was three or four years in length. (2) A Church secretary's account of a conversation the Prophet had with a visitor in Kirtland calling himself Joshua and claiming to be a Jewish minister. In this account the Prophet tells us that he saw many angels in the vision [November 9, 1835]. (3) The formal account now found in the Pearl of Great Price and in common use in missionary pamphlets [1838]. (4) Orson Pratt's publication of the vision in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1842. (5) Orson Hyde's revision of Elder Pratt's pamphlet published in 1842 in Frankfurt, Germany. (6) The Wentworth Letter here being considered. (7) A terse diary entry by Levi Richards written in Nauvoo [1843]. (8) A newspaper interview published in the fall of 1843 [Pittsburgh Gazette]. (9) A very rough but moving account written in the diary of Alexander Neibaur, a German convert in Nauvoo [1844]. (1003)

2000 Church History in the Fulness of Times. The History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Prepared by the Church Educational System. Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Salt Lake City, Utah. 2nd edition 2000; 1st edition 1993. “Revivals and camp meetings affected young Joseph. He wrote in his personal history … [1832 account]. The volume also cites the November 9, 1835, Wentworth Letter (1842), and the 1894 interview with William Smith, as well as citing Lucy Mack Smith’s 1853 Biographical Sketches (29-36). Elsewhere the volume relates the request of John Wentworth for some information about the church. Joseph Smith “sent Wentworth a multi-page document containing an account of many of the early events in the history of the Restoration, including the First Vision….” (256-7) The reader is referred to Dean Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, and to Milton Backman, Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision.

1998 Elder L. Tom Perry, General Conference April 1998, Ensign (CR), May 1998, p.22 Let us review for a moment how the Articles of Faith came to be. The Prophet was often asked to explain the teachings and practices of Mormonism. John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat, asked Joseph Smith to provide him with a sketch of 'the rise, progress, persecution, and faith of the Latter-Day Saints.' " Mr. Wentworth, originally from New Hampshire, desired this information to help a friend compile a history of his native state. "Joseph complied with this request and sent Wentworth a multi-page document containing an account of many of the early events in the history of the Restoration, including the First Vision and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. The document also contained thirteen statements outlining Latter-day Saint beliefs, which have come to be known as the Articles of Faith." The information sent to Wentworth was not published in the Chicago Democrat, but in the Church newspaper, Times and Seasons, published in March of 1842. "In 1851 the Articles of Faith were included in the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price published in the British Mission. After the Pearl of Great Price was revised in 1878 and canonized in 1880, the Articles of Faith became official doctrine of the Church" (see Church History in the Fulness of Times [Church Educational System Manual, 1993], 256-57).

LDS-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision (1990-1997)

1996 Kent P. Jackson, From Apostasy to Restoration (Deseret Book 1996): 66-79; cf. 80-9. “In the earliest days of the history of the Church, Joseph Smith apparently spoke less frequently about the First Vision than he did about other sacred experiences…. By the end of the Prophet’s lifetime, he may have told the story of the First Vision on many occasions. Yet his own written accounts of it have been preserved in only five places…. Because the accounts were written under different circumstances and perhaps with different readers in mind the emphasis in them varies from one to the next.” He then quotes and discusses 1832; Nov 9, 1835; 1838; 1842 Wentworth letter; 1843 Pittsburgh Gazette (reprinted in New York Spectator and at least two other papers). He also quotes the letter he wrote to I. Daniel Rupp, published by the latter in 1844. He also mentions the accounts by Orson Pratt (1840), Orson Hyde (1842 in German), and the diary entry of Alexander Neibauer 24 May 1844. He also mentions that the 1838 account was reprinted in the Church newspaper in 1842, and again in 1851 in a small missionary pamphlet titled “Pearl of Great Price.” He also refers to several modern secondary works, which contain these accounts:Backman, Eyewitness Accounts; Jessee, Papers of Joseph Smith

1996 Russell M. Nelson, “At the Heart of the Church”, in The Prophet and his Work: Essays from General Authorities on Joseph Smith and the Restoration (Deseret Book 1996): 50-65. [After quoting from the canonized version Elder Nelson writes] “The most prominent account of the First Vision, from which I have quoted, was prepared by the Prophet for publication in 1838. At least three other accounts of the vision were also recorded. These accounts were given under different circumstances to different audiences and for different purposes. Because each account emphasizes a different aspect of the same experience, some of the detractors of the Church have attempted to point out discrepancies in the several accounts. In the January 1985 Ensign appears a most noteworthy article by Milton V. Backman, Jr., entitled "Joseph Smith's Recitals of the First Vision." You will want to study this and become familiar with each of the recorded accounts of the First Vision so that you will not be disarmed if you hear that more than one account was given.” (53)

1996 Richard L. Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s Testimony of the First Vision”, Ensign, April 1996. “We now know of nine contemporary reports from the Prophet himself or from those who personally heard him relate his first vision: (1) the Prophet’s handwritten description in 1832, an attempt to start a manuscript history of the Church; (2) a Church secretary’s brief 1835 journal entry of Joseph talking with a visitor who called himself Joshua, the Jewish minister; (3) the 1838 history discussed above, published in 1842 and now in the Pearl of Great Price; (4) Orson Pratt’s publication, the first publicly disseminated, of the Prophet’s vision in his Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, issued in 1840 in Edinburgh, Scotland; (5) Orson Hyde’s revision of Orson Pratt’s pamphlet, published in 1842 for German readers and adding some insights that may have come from his contact with Joseph Smith; (6) the Wentworth Letter, created in response to editor John Wentworth’s inquiry and published by Joseph Smith in 1842 in Times and Seasons; this account adapted parts of Orson Pratt’s pamphlet; (7) Levi Richards’s diary about Joseph Smith preaching in the summer of 1843 and repeating the Lord’s first message to him that no church was His; (8) a newspaper interview in the fall of 1843; (9) Alexander Neibaur’s 1844 journal entry of a conversation at the Prophet’s house.” Rest of article deals with issues between some of these.

1996 Joseph Smith. The Choice Seer. The Prophet’s Greatness as Teacher, Priesthood Leader, and Restorer. Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet ((Bookcraft 1996). “As a service to the reader, in the back of the book we have included three accounts of the First Vision. These are often hard to find elsewhere” (xiii) These are 1832 (369-71); November 9, 1835 (373-7); Wentworth, March 1, 1842 (375-382). Quotes part of the interview with the Pittsburgh Gazette editor, September 1843 (=New York Spectator) (8-9) 1832 partially quoted (35) Orson Pratt’s 1840 version cited and quoted (79-80) Throughout the book they draw from Milton Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1980); Dean Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith 2 volumes (1989); Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (1984).

1996 Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, Revised and Enhanced, edited by Scot Facer Proctor and Maurine Jensen Proctor 1996 by Bookcraft. . This is the 1853 work by Lucy. In the footnotes to chapter 17, dealing with the first vision, the Proctors refer to 1832, 1835, Wentworth Letter (1842), the William Smith interview in Deseret News for 1894.

1996 David Paulsen, “The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives”, BYU Studies, 35. 3 (1996): Refers to Pratt (1840); Hyde 1842 German; Pittsburgh Gazette 1843; Citing Jessee, Papers of Joseph Smith

1995 Joseph Wirthlin, Finding Peace in Our Lives (Deseret Book Company: Salt Lake City, Utah 1995). “A key document of the restoration of the gospel is a letter the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote in reply to a request of John Wentworth, editor of a Chicago newspaper. In it, the Prophet wrote a "sketch of the rise, progress, persecution, and faith of the Latter-day Saints." It apparently was the first published account of principal events that occurred in the thirty-six-year period after the Prophet's birth.” (130)

1994 T. Edgar Lyon, Twelfth Annual Joseph Smith Memorial Sermon, Logan L.D.S. Institute of Religion, December 5, 1954. The Annual Joseph Smith Memorial Sermons Presented each year near the birthday of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. at the Logan Institute of Religion 1944-1994 Joseph Smith Memorial Sermons, copyright 1994 by Institute of Religion: Logan, Utah, as enhanced by Infobases, Inc. All rights reserved. Lyon primarily discusses John Wentworth, but also points out the differences between the Wentworth account of the first vision, and the canonized version. [NOTE: It is not clear if this was published in 1954, or possibly 1966; but certainly in 1994]

1992 Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by Daniel Ludlow (1992). Sv ‘first vision’ http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/First_Vision On several occasions between 1832 and 1842, the young Prophet wrote or dictated accounts of the vision, each in a different setting, the last two for publication. Each record omits or adds some details. In 1832, for example, Joseph Smith wrote that prior to his First Vision he searched the scriptures and concluded that no society taught New Testament Christianity (Backman, p. 156; Jessee, p. 5). In the 1838 account he notes that he often said to himself, "Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together?" Later in this same account he parenthetically adds "(for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)" (JS-H 1:10, 18; Jessee, pp. 198, 200).

1992 Did Brigham Young confirm or expound on Joseph Smith’s first vision? Milton V. Backman, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Apr. 1992, 59.

1992 Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin, General Conference April 1992. A key document of the restoration of the gospel is a letter the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote in reply to a request of John Wentworth, editor of a Chicago newspaper. In the Wentworth letter, the Prophet wrote a "sketch of the rise, progress, persecution, and faith of the Latter-day Saints." (History of the Church, 4:535.) It apparently was the first published account of principal events that occurred in the 36-year-period after the Prophet's birth. The last part of the letter, the Articles of Faith, is a concise statement of fundamental beliefs of the Church. The fact that one heaven-inspired person rather than a council of scholars produced this remarkable document is another evidence of Joseph Smith's divine calling. (See History of the Church, 4:535.)

1992 Milton V. Backman, Jr., “Defender of the First Vision,” in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint History: New York. Editors Larry C. Porter, Milton V. Backman, Jr., Susan Easton Black (Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 1992): 33-46. Quotes or cites Joseph Smith’s 1832, 1838 accounts, the Wentworth account. Orson Pratt: 1840 pamphlet was the first publication of the first vision. Elder Pratt also spoke of it often, and wrote elsewhere about it: Millennial Star 1849; seven sermons by Elder Pratt: JD 12:353; 7:220; 14:140; 17:279; 22:29; 15. 181; 21. 303 ff.

1992 James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed., rev. and enl. (Deseret Book 1992; first edition 1976): 164. Pratt’s 1840 pamphlet “which contained the first printed account of Joseph Smith's first vision.” (164)

1991 David Whittaker, “Foreword. Responding to the Critics”, Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley: Volume 11. Joseph Smith and the Restored Gospel (FARMS and Deseret Book 1991): ix-xxi. “Recent work has now been done on the now available accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision.” (xvi, citing Paul Cheesman, An Analysis… (MA 1965); Jessee, “The Early Accounts…” (1969); Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1980 2nd edition); Marvin Hill (Dialogue 1982).

1990 Kent P. Jackson, “Moroni’s Message to Joseph Smith. A look at the verses the angel Moroni quoted to the Prophet Joseph Smith on 21-22 September 1823”, Ensign (August 1990): 12-16. “During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, he wrote or dictated four separate accounts of the appearance of Moroni: one dictated to Frederick G. Williams in 1832; a journal entry in 1835 [November 9]; another, the ‘official’ account, dictated in 1838 [and published 1842]; and the Wentworth Letter, published by the Prophet in 1842.” In the footnote to this list he points out that the 1832, 1838, and Wentworth accounts followed first vision accounts. It is a fact however, that each of the others also followed first vision accounts. He also refers to the Moroni accounts in Orson Pratt’s 1840 pamphlet, and Cowdery’s 1834-5 letters.

LDS-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision (1984-1989)

1989 Joseph Smith. Selected Sermons & Writings. Edited by Robert L. Millet (Paulist Press 1989). [NOTE: This is part of a series, Sources of American Spirituality, published by a Catholic Press] “There are four accounts of this theophany [First Vision], as recorded by Joseph Smith and his scribes…. An 1832 account; an 1835 account; an 1838 account; and an 1842 account [referring to Dean Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith]. Some of the differences between the accounts of the First Vision have proven to be points of controversy between critics and apologists. For example, the earliest account (1832) mentions the appearance of only one heavenly personage; there is some discrepancy between the 1832 and 1838 accounts regarding the Prophet’s age at the time of the theophany (14 or 16 years); and the 1835 account indicates that ‘many angels’ were also present at the time of the vision, a detail not mentioned in the other three accounts. Critics suggest that the discrepancies point toward fabrication of the story; believers suggest that such differences no more falsify the experience than do similar differences in the accounts of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9, 22, 26) or the differences in the gospel accounts of the ministry of Jesus” (15, note 34) 1838 cited extensively (59-61) “Today the story of Joseph Smith’s First Vision is generally the beginning point of discussion on Mormonism. Such may not have always been the case. It appears that until the 1880s the missionary appeal of Mormonism was centered in the Book of Mormon, rather than in the First Vision.” (20)

1989 Truman G. Madsen, Joseph Smith the Prophet (Bookcraft 1989). Chapter One: The First Vision and Its Aftermath: 7-18. He refers to the 1969 issue of BYU Studies, of which he was the general editor; it “published a collection of the four known written accounts of the First Vision. One was first recorded in 1832; another in 1835, after a visit Joseph had with a Jewish visitor named Matthias; there is the 1838 statement, which has been published to the world in the Pearl of Great Price; and finally, the well-known Wentworth letter written in 1842” (8) He cites or quotes the 1832, the 1838, 1840 by Orson Pratt; the 1835 interview with Matthias; the Neibaur diary entry in May 1844. See also endnotes 5, 6, 9, 20, 25, 43 (131-136).

1989 Dean Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith, 2 volumes (Deseret Book, 1989). Includes 1843 first publication of an interview with Joseph Smith, by the editor David Nye White, “The Prairies, Nauvoo, Joe Smith, the Temple, the Mormons, etc.,” Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette 58 (September 15, 1843), 1:443-4; Jessee thanks Noel Barton for finding the original; a reprint in New York Spectator had always been cited prior to this time. Later reprinted several more times, Painesville Telegraph and Quincy Whig. [NOTE: Volume one includes 1832; 1838-9; Wentworth Letter; 1842 Joseph Smith History; Orson Pratt 1840; Orson Hyde 1842 German; 1843 Gazette interview; I. Daniel Rupp 1844; Neibaur diary 1843. Volume two includes 9 November 1835.

1989 Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, ”The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith. The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation”, Part 1. Ensign (January 1989): 27-33. A graph appears on page 32, “Early Sources Containing the Doctrinal Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”. The first one is the First Vision; the footnote to this reads: “Recorded in 1831 [1832], 1835, 1839, 1840, 1843, 1844. It has been published in many places and at many times. For a summary see Milton V. Backman, Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980).” 1988 Joseph Fielding McConkie, Prophets and Prophecy (Bookcraft 1988): 164. “It ‘filled me with unspeakable joy,’ Joseph Smith said in describing the feelings he experienced during the First Vision” (164, citing the November 9, 1835 version, from Milton Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision, 159).

1988 Milton V. Backman, Jr., “Lo, Here! Lo, There! Early in the Spring of 1820”, in The Prophet Joseph. Essays on the Life and Mission of Joseph Smith. Edited by Larry C. Porter and Susan Easton Black (Deseret Book 1988):19-35. “On four different occasions, Joseph Smith wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his First Vision that have been preserved. There is a different emphasis in ach of the accounts. They were prepared at different times, for different audiences, and for different purposes. Each of them emphasizes a different aspect of his experience. These accounts have been published in…” Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1980), and Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (1984) (32, note 2). Also refers to his harmony of these versions of the first vision in Backman, Eyewitness Accounts…. (1986). In the present chapter he quotes and/or cites each of the various versions: 1832; Nov. 9, 1835; 1842 History of Joseph Smith. He also referred to others who would later report his accounts of the first vision, for which he refers his readers to Backman, “Confirming Witnesses….”, Ensign (January 1986): 32-37. He also cites Orson Pratt’s two part article on the Father and the Son as separate persons, in which he refers to the first vision: Millennial Star 11 (1849): 310.

1988 Dean C. Jessee, “Joseph Smith and the Beginning of Mormon Record Keeping”, in The Prophet Joseph. Essays on the Life and Mission of Joseph Smith. Edited by Larry C. Porter and Susan Easton Black (Deseret Book 1988): 138-160. Writes that the 1832 manuscript history “contained the earliest account of the Prophet’s First Vision, the only one written with his own hand” (148).

1988 Paul R. Cheesman, The Keystone of Mormonism: Early Visions of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Provo: Eagle Systems International, 1988. 205 pp. Reviewed by Larry C. Porter, FARMS Review of Books, 2 (1990), 65-6.

1987 An American Prophet’s Record. The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith. Edited by Scott H. Faulring (Signature Books 1987, 1898). 1832 version quoted pages 3-6; November 9, 1835 quoted 50-52; November 14, 1835 quoted 59.

1987 Breck England, “Gospel Seeds in Scottish Soil,” Ensign, Feb 1987, 26-31. Mentions Pratt’s 1840 pamphlet containing the first publication of the first vision.

1987 Hoyt W. Brewster Jr., “I Have a Question,” Ensign, July 1987, 65–67. “On at least four occasions, the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote or dictated an account of his First Vision experience” He cites 1832, 1835, 1838, and Wentworth Letter of 1842, referring the reader to Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1980), and Backman “Joseph Smith’s Recitals…” Ensign 1985.

1987 Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Personality of the Prophet,” New Era, Dec 1987, 14. He quotes from the 1832 version (from Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith 1984). He also refers to Lucy Mack Smith’s 1853 book, and Lorenzo Snow’s late reminiscences.

1986 Leonard Arrington, “Joseph Smith”, in The Presidents of the Church. Biographical Essays (Deseret Book 1986): 1-42. He recites the first vision with an amalgam of the canonized version, 1832, 1843 Pittsburgh Gazette, and the Neibaur interview (7-8).

1986 Reprint of Milton V. Backman, Jr., Eyewitness Accounts of the Restoration (Deseret Book 1983).

1986 Milton V. Backman, Jr., “Confirming Witnesses of the First Vision”, Ensign (January 1986): 32-7. This is a continuation of his January 1985 article. He cites and/or quotes from Edward Stevenson reminiscence (1893), Orson Pratt 1840 pamphlet, as well as subsequent comments by Pratt (JD 7. 20; Millennial Star (15 Sept 1849): 281-4; 309-12; Millennial Star (11 February 1865): 88: History of Orson Pratt; Orson Hyde 1842 pamphlet, in German; Pittsburgh Gazette interview first mentioned, but cited as from the reprint in the New York Spectator 1843; Alexander Neibaur diary 1843; John Taylor (JD 21. 161).

1986 Richard L. Anderson, ‘A Tested Testimony’, in A Thoughtful Faith, Compiled and edited by Philip L. Barlow (Centerville, Utah: Canon Press: 1986): 277-292. “Behind events are personalities. The two that really count for Latter-day Saints are Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ, who the Prophet said appeared to him from time to time and directed his words in the revelations…. Nor can I read the earliest account of the First Vision and the revelations of 1829 without feeling Christ’s deepest concern…. [284] His forthright personal or dictated accounts of the First Vision all ring true in terms of his life and the simplicity of his words…. [285] History becomes a weapon against the Church only when one loses sight of larger historical issues. Anti-Mormon literature has long traded on character assassination and trivia. Proving Joseph Smith’s weaknesses does not invalidate his visions The great revelations of God in the scriptures came either to Christ or to those much less perfect than he” “After facts are determined, what generalizations or conclusions are to be drawn from them? All can agree that Joseph Smith told his First Vision in 1832, 1835, and 1838. A believer will see supplementing agreements, a determined critic will claim contradictions that invalidate the testimony and a humanist will downplay the experience as only subjective anyway. They all agree on step one, identifying historical data, but radically differ in interpreting it, which is step two of the process…. President Hinckley well said in a general priesthood meeting in 1985 that the Church does not object to historical scrutiny when done with accuracy and balance. Those words summarize the two stages of quality history” (286).

1985 Dean C. Jessee, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, July 1985, 15–17. I have heard that Joseph Smith didn’t actually write his history—that it was prepared by clerks under his direction. If so, how reliable is it? Uses the 1832 account, which contains the earliest statement on first vision.

1985 Dean C. Jessee “The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision (JS-H 1-26)”, in Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson, eds., Studies in Scripture, Vol. 2: The Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City, Utah: Randall Book Co., 1985): 303-314 [includes 1832, Nov 9, and 14, 1835, 1838-9, Wentworth letter]

1985 Kent Jackson, “The Appearance of Moroni to Joseph Smith (JS-H 27-49)”, in Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson, eds., Studies in Scripture, Vol. 2: The Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City, Utah: Randall Book Co., 1985): 339-66. After quoting part of his 1832 account, Jackson writes “In his later recitations of his early experiences…. He remembered in 1832…. Six years later he clarified [1838 account]” (339-340). “During the Prophet’s lifetime he wrote or dictated four separate known accounts of the appearance of Moroni to him…. It should be noted that the first two accounts (1832 and [Nov 9] 1835) are unedited rough drafts that were not prepared for publication. The first of these is preserved in the draft of a history that the Prophet wrote and dictated between 20 July and 27 November 1832. The account of Moroni’s visit was dictated to Frederick G. Williams, and it follows his recitation of the First Vision” (341). [November 9, 1835, to Robert Matthews, “dictated to Warren Parrish”…. “After recounting the First Vision…” (342-3) [1838, which became the official version in March 15, 1842 (344)] [Wentworth Letter, March 1, 1842] (344) [Under “Other Sources”, Jackson relates briefly Oliver Cowdery 1834-5; and Orson Pratt, 1840] “Each of Joseph Smith’s four known written accounts of his experiences on the night of 21-22 September 1823….” (347) In his article, Professor Jackson refers his readers to the following work, which contains the various accounts of the First Vision: Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1984)

1985 Milton V. Backman, Jr., “Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision,’ Ensign 15 (January 1985): 8-17. Quotes and/or discusses 1832, 1835 [Nov. 9], 1838, 1842 (Wentworth), 1842 publication of 1838; plus 11 sermons delivered later by those who had known him. He also cites several previous publications: Jessee, BYU Studies 9 (Spring 1969); Backman’s Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1980). Backman, Jr., Eyewitness Accounts of the Restoration (1983), Jessee’s The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (1984),

1984 Dean C. Jessee, “Joseph Smith Jr.—in His Own Words, Part 1,” Ensign, Dec. 1984, 22. Text and images based on his 1832 diary, including the first vision account.

1984 Gordon B. Hinckley, First Presidency Message, “God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear”, 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.”

1984 James E. Faust, General Conference, April 8, 1984. “The Magnificent Vision Near Palmyra, Ensign May 1984): 67-8. ”There are several accounts of the magnificent vision near Palmyra recorded by the Prophet’s associates or friends before the Prophet’s death, who, at various times, heard the Prophet recount the First Vision. These accounts corroborate the First Vision as written by Joseph Smith himself” (67-8). He cites Lucy 1853, and several reminiscences regarding his integrity.

1984 William G. Hartley, “Snow on Fire,” New Era, Jan. 1984, 38. Author writes “Joseph Smith, 14 at the time of the First Vision, first felt spiritually troubled by age 12.” [This information is found only in the 1832 version.]

1984 Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (University of Illinois 1984): 55-59. He cites extensively from the 1832 account; refers to the 1835 and 1838 accounts. Cites the 1843 New York Spectator account. Critiques William Smith’s accounts. Bushman cites all the previous books and articles dealing with the First Vision.

1984 Richard L. Anderson, “The Organization Revelations (D&C 20, 21, and 22), in Studies in Scripture. Volume One. The Doctrine and Covenants. Edited by Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson (Sandy, Utah, Randall Books: 1984): 109-123. Refers to his diary accounts of 1832 and 1835 [November 9] (110-111). Also suggests D&C 20.4-5 might include reference to first vision “but in terse language that those informed would understand” (111), referring to Dean Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith.

LDS-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision(1979-1983)

1983 Milton V. Backman, Jr., Eyewitness Accounts of the Restoration (Deseret Book 1983, 1986). “On four different occasions Joseph Smith wrote or dictated a detailed account of this marvelous and sacred experience of 1820. Three of these recitals [have been referred to in the first chapter]: the autobiography and history written in 1832 (which is the only account of the First Vision in Joseph’s handwriting, the others being dictated to scribes), the history of the Church which was initiated in 1838, and the Wentworth Letter. A fourth history is the record of a conversation between Joseph Smith and a visitor to Kirtland, Ohio, a man named Matthias. This latter account is recorded in Joseph Smith’s Kirtland diary by his scribe, Warren Cowdery, under the date Monday, November 9th, 1835” (17-8) “In addition to the four accounts recorded by Joseph Smith regarding his visions, before the Prophet’s death in 1844, four contemporaries wrote accounts of the First Vision based upon testimonies related to them by the Prophet. The first published account of the First Vision was written by Orson Pratt, and appeared in a work entitled A Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions (Edinburgh, 1840)” …. Orson Hyde, another apostle who was well acquainted with Joseph Smith, also prepared an account of the First Vision. His description of the early visions of Joseph Smith as written in German and was basically a translation of the English version prepared by Orson Pratt [Germany 1842]. A third early rendition of Joseph Smith’s First Vision was written by a non-Mormon newspaper editor who visited Nauvoo and, following a conversation with the Mormon prophet, published a description of what he learned from Joseph Smith in the New York Spectator of September 23, 1843 [it was not known yet that it had been previously published in Pittsburgh Gazette, by David Nye White] On May 24, 1844, one month prior to the death of Joseph Smith, Alexander Neibaur, another convert and friend of the Prophet, listened as Joseph Smith related to him his experience in the sacred grove. Following this conversation, Neibaur recorded in his journal his impressions of what Joseph said on that occasion” (19) Backman published these accounts in a running story, drawing from each of the various accounts (22-28). He then quotes from Orson Pratt, JD 12. 353-5; and Orson Pratt, JD 14. 141. He also includes a harmony in Appendix A (201-3) He refers to “additional descriptions (by contemporaries) of what Joseph Smith saw and learned during his First Vision”, referring only to volume and page: JD 2. 170-1; 2. 196-7; 7. 220-1; 8. 354; 11.1-2; 12. 67; 12. 302; 12. 352-4; 13. 65-7; 13. 77-8; 14. 140-1; 14. 261-2; 15. 180-2; 18. 239; 20. 167; 21. 161-5; 22. 29; 24. 371-3; 25. 155-7 (32, note 41) Backman also writes: “In the early history of the Church, some leaders referred to Jesus as an angel (a messenger from the Father)” (32, note 41) Backman also writes the following regarding Lucy Mack Smith’s Biographical Sketches, published in 1853: “During the winter following the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, Lucy commenced dictating this history (which included a biography of her son, Joseph) to Martha Jane Knowlton Coray, a school teacher who had married Howard Coray, one of the scribes who had assisted Joseph in writing his history. In an attempt to obtain increased accuracy in her work, Lucy directed Martha and Howard Coray to assist in rewriting her history. A copy of the revised edition of Lucy’s manuscript was obtained by her son, William. Eventually a copy of the document was secured by Isaac Sheen, a member of the Church living in Michigan. While Orson Pratt, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, was traveling to England on a mission, he was shown the manuscript copy and purchased it from Sheen. This work was subsequently published in England under the title Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, and his Progenitors for many Generations (Liverpool: published for Orson Pratt and S.W. Richards, 1853)” (2-3)

1983 Milton V. Backman, Jr., The Heavens Resound. A History of the Latter-day Saints in Ohio 1830-1838 (Deseret Book 1983). “In a conversation with Robert Matthias also known as ‘Joshua the Jewish minister,’ a visitor to Kirtland in 1835 [November 9], Joseph Smith described his first vision. He said that while he was engaged in a quest for religious truth, he called upon the Lord and beheld a glorious vision. ‘A pillar of fire appeared above my head,’ he explained, ‘and filled me with unspeakable joy. A personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame, which was spread all around and yet nothing consumed. Another personage soon appeared like unto the first: he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee.’ During the 1830s the Prophet identified in his writings the two personages who appeared to him in the spring of 1820 as the Father and the Son” (231-2). In the footnotes he refers us to his book Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1980), and further states that the official version was begun in 1838, after he had moved to Missouri (422, notes 87, 88)

1982 Marvin Hill “The First Vision Controversy: A Critique and Reconciliation” Dialogue, 15. 2 (Summer 1982): 31-44.

1982 Richard L. Anderson, “The Credibility of the Book of Mormon Translators,” in Book of Mormon Authorship. New Light on Ancient Origins Edited by Noel B. Reynolds (BYU 1982): 213-37. Although this is an article about the Book of Mormon, the First Vision is included in all the recorded discussions of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, by Joseph Smith. Anderson quotes frequently from the “1832 manuscript that was the Prophet’s first attempt to give ‘an account of his marvelous experiences’”, and refers the reader to Dean Jessee, “Early Accounts…” BYU Studies 1969 (232-3, note 1. Another note refers to the 1832 manuscript which “is now the earliest priesthood restoration reference” (235, note, 28).

1981 Adele Brannon McCollum, “The First Vision: Re-Visioning Historical Experience”. Neal A. Lambert, ed., Literature of Belief: Sacred Scripture and Religious Experience, (1981 Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University): 177-195. [Conference held Thursday and Friday, March 7-8, 1979, at BYU; reviewed Ensign (December 1979): 70-72] She refers to the 1832 version, and the official version; also refers to previously published items by Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1971; suggesting it was time for a new edition (which happened in 1980); James Allen Improvement Era (1970, and Allen, Dialogue 1966; and to Dean Jessee and Richard L. Anderson, both in BYU Studies 1969]

1981 Klaus Hansen, Mormonism and the American Experience (University of Chicago 1981). “Whatever power Smith may have had over other men, he emphatically insisted that he had the ability to see visions from his early youth. In 1838 he claimed in his official autobiography (later canonized) that as early as 1820, when he was a mere boy of fourteen, he had suffered from a severe religious anxiety regarding the truthfulness of various competing sects…….. Smith made things difficult for himself by writing eighteen years before setting down what was to become the official, authorized account of events that purportedly occurred in 1820…. In recent years Mormon historians have assembled fragments of earlier accounts, none can be traced back to the year 1820. Moreover, the versions differ in some of their details. While Latter-day Saint scholars tend to regard these earlier accounts as confirmation of Smith’s veracity, some non-Mormon scholars have come to exactly the opposite conclusion, seeing them as evidence of the evolution of his fertile imagination. Because of their fragmentary nature, these accounts do not support firm conclusions for either side. Circumstantial evidence, likewise, has not helped to close the case” (21-23) He cites several earlier books and articles: Jessee, “early accounts” (1969): Allen, “Eight Contemporary Accounts” (1970); Anderson, “Circumstantial Confirmation” (1969) Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1979).

1980 Milton V. Backman, Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision. The First Vision in its Historical Context; second enlarged edition of (Bookcraft 1971; 2nd edition revised and enlarged 1980). This volume has full citations from 1832, 1835, 1838, 1842 (Wentworth Letter), Orson Pratt (1840), Orson Hyde (1842 German), 1843 Pittsburgh Gazette, 1844 Alexander Neibaur, Edward Stevenson reminiscence (1893), John Taylor 1879. The 1980 edition includes two new appendices. One of them (Q) includes a “Reply to Critics” in which a harmonization of the various accounts is included. He also gives references to 4 sermons by Orson Pratt in later years.

1980 Neal E. Lambert and Richard H. Cracroft, “Literary Form and Historical Understanding: Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” Journal of Mormon History 7 (1980): 31-42.

1980 Review of recent meeting of the Mormon History Association, during which James Allen delivered the paper [below], in Ensign (July 1980): 79. In that review was the following: “Another presentation on the First Vision was that of James B. Allen of BYU’s History Department. Members of the Church now see it as ‘the most central event’ of the restoration of the gospel, but he reviewed how missionaries used the Book of Mormon much more than the First Vision to prove Joseph Smith’s prophetic mission and that the First Vision did not receive strong emphasis until the 1880s when “George Q. Cannon set the tone for the next hundred years’ by suggesting it be taught to children. Dr. Allen concluded his presentation with a list of thirty-four statements by various General Authorities from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries about what the First Vision proves, including: the Father has a body of flesh and bones, he is approachable, and he answers prayers; Jesus is a being similar to the Father; and revelation is continuous” (79). [NOTE: The Cannon connection was already made by Fawn Brodie in 1945]

1980 James B. Allen, “Emergence of a Fundamental: The Expanding Role of Joseph Smith’s First Vision in Mormon Religious Thought,” Journal of Mormon History 7 (1980): 43-61. ]

1979 “Symposium Examines ‘Literature of Belief’,” Ensign, Dec. 1979, 70–72. [BYU Conference March 7, 8, 1979, consisting of LDS and many non-LDS scholars representing various religious traditions] “The story of the First Vision—not only what happened there but the fact that it happened—was the subject explored by Adele B. McCollum, who teaches philosophy and religion at Montclair State College in New Jersey. “To believe in the vision of Joseph Smith is to believe that one may have to look on God and yet live. And that risk is great because one will never again live in the same way.” She discussed in greater detail one of the most threatening aspects of that vision: the multiplicity of Gods. Part of what Joseph Smith found out is that God and man do not belong to two completely different species, that man cannot only experience God but also “experience himself as god, that is, to experience Godness. In Mormonism, man, though finite, is not completely separated from God.” [NOTE: The book containing the papers presented at this conference was published 1981; see under date]

1979 James B. Allen, “Line upon Line,” Ensign, Jul 1979, 37. “Finally, it is interesting to observe that LDS understanding of the nature of the Godhead has also seen considerable growth since the Church was organized in 1830. There was no question among the Saints from the beginning that God was a personal being, or that man had direct access to him through prayer. Joseph Smith had seen him, as well as his Son, Jesus Christ, in vision, years before the Church was organized. But in the early years, few members of the Church were fully aware of Joseph Smith’s first vision, for at first he did not widely circulate any account of it.[note 13] Only in 1838, to correct “the many reports which have been put into circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons,” would he prepare it for publication (JS—H 1:1).” [Note 13 refers to James B. Allen, “The Significance of Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’ in Mormon Thought,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 1 (1966):40–41.]

1979 Marvin Hill, ‘On the First Vision and Its Import in the Shaping of Early Mormonism,” Dialogue 12 (Spring, 1979): 90-99.

1979 Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience. A History of the Latter-day Saints (Random House 1979; Vintage Books August 1980). [At the time of writing Arrington was Church Historian, and Professor of History at BYU; Bitton was Professor of History at University of Utah]. Quotes from both 1832 and 1838 [=1842 publication; canonized version]. “Textual analysis shows several differences between this early version and the later ones, but these are mainly matters of emphasis” (7-8). Cites Anderson ‘Circumstantial Confirmation…” (1969); Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1971); Jessee, “Early Accounts…” (1969); Paul R. Cheesman, An analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith’s Early Visions (Master’s Thesis, BYU 1965). Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches (1853)

1979 J. Christopher Conkling, A Joseph Smith Chronology (Deseret Book 1979): 3 “The first known record of the first vision was not made until 1831 or 1832”. Refers to1839 version which was eventually canonized, and Orson Pratt’s 1840 version. “For comparisons of the several early versions of the first vision, see BYU Studies, (Spring 1969), 275-96; and Improvement Era (April 1970): 413.” Refers to Pratt’s 1840 version as “the first known time that Joseph Smith's first vision is put into print.” (147)

1979 David Whittaker, “Joseph Smith’s First Vision. A Sourced Essay”, Mormon History Association Newsletter 42 (November 1979): 7-9. “Until the 1940s few in depth historical studies had dealt with the vision itself. Here are some major historical works available to the interested student. Dean Jessee (Dialogue 6 (Spring 1971): 85-8; Richard L. Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s New York Reputation Reappraised,’ BYU Studies 10 (Spring 1970): 283-314; Marvin Hill article continues with the following: unmentioned Hill source is Dialogue 1979; Jessee, BYU Studies (1969); Cheesman 1965; Backman, 1976; Backman (1971); JB Allen, Dialogue (1966); JB Allen Improvement Era (April 1973).

LDS-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision (1969-1978)

1978 Dean Jessee, "The Spirituality of Joseph Smith", Ensign Sept 1978, 14-20. Jessee writes: "In an early account of his First Vision, Joseph elaborated upon the struggle that preceded the event--the searching, the solemn and serious impressions, the concern for mankind, the application to scripture and teachers, the years of pondering, the parental teachings, the sorrow for sin, the serious contemplations of the works of nature, and the yearning to God for mercy, because 'there was none else to whom I could go.' He wrote the experience with his own pen: [he then quotes the 1832 version, beginning with] 'At about the age of twelve years my mind became seriously imprest with regard to the all importent concerns for the wellfare of my immortal soul...." (page 17-8).

1977 Jeane Woolfenden, “Lovely Was the Morning,” New Era, Oct 1977, 22. She quotes from the canonized version; and then cites some “recently discovered account of the vision written by Joseph”, and refers to Dean Jessee’s “Early Accounts….” 1969.

1976 Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Gold Plates and Printer’s Ink,” Ensign, Sep 1976, 71-82. “Although most Church members are familiar with the basic events surrounding the coming forth of the Book of Mormon—the First Vision, the delivery of the gold plates, the translation, the 1830 publishing date, etc.—few know the story in all the detail that is now available, since hundreds of interesting new facts have come to light only in the last decade. Recently discovered accounts by Joseph Smith and those close to him have filled in gaps in what could formerly only be told as a partial story. In 1831 Joseph Smith said that “it was not expedient” then to “tell the world all the particulars” about the Book of Mormon. However, he later made his history a priority project, compiling nearly a hundred pages of narrative and documents on the Book of Mormon years. Had there been no Liberty Jail, this record would have appeared earlier than 1842, when the Nauvoo Times and Seasons began serializing it as the detailed “History of Joseph Smith.” Informed Latter-day Saints have read this account, or the condensed form in the Pearl of Great Price. But, in fact, Joseph Smith reviewed his visions many times, adding details to the official history. Here we will principally use his early 1832 narrative, some of which is in the Prophet’s own handwriting, and also his secretary’s notes of a private summary in 1835—each of these manuscripts hereinafter identified by date of writing. And just as Joseph Smith’s recollections can be multiplied, his mother’s printed history is supplemented by an early manuscript compiled from talks with her, often adding detail….. Joseph Smith’s 1832 notes on the First Vision gave personal details unmentioned in public accounts, stressing that the Savior had appeared and assured him of forgiveness of sins, followed by Joseph’s falling “into transgression … in many things, which brought a wound upon my soul.” [after this the article deals strictly with the Book of Mormon] [NOTE: Anderson cites 1832, Nov. 9, 1835, Lucy Mack Smith 1853 and earlier rough drafts, as well as Anderson Improvement Era 1970, and Jessee BYU Studies 1969, both elsewhere in this list, under date]

1976 Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, (1976 Deseret Book Company): 7-13. After quoting extensively from the canonized version, Ludlow writes “The Prophet bore testimony many times of the sacred experience he had when he talked with the Father and the Son.” In addition to quoting the Wentworth Letter (1842), he quotes two reminiscences from Edward Stevenson, one from Joseph Grant Stevenson, Stevenson Family History [Provo: Joseph Grant Stevenson, 1955], 1:19-21; and a second one quoted in William E. Berrett and Alma H. Burton, Readings in L.D.S. Church History [Deseret Book Co., 1953], 1:17.

1975 James B. Allen and Malcom R. Thorp , “The Mission of the Twelve To England, 1840-41: Mormon Apostles and the Working Classes” BYU Studies, 15. 4 (Summer 1975): 526 Refers to Orson Pratt’s 1840 pamphlet “which contains the first version of Joseph Smith's First Vision to be published in Church sources.”

1971 Review of Milton Backman, Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision, by Hyrum L. Andrus, Ensign (September 1971): 54-55. “Dr. Backman’s… book sets the first vision of the Prophet Joseph ‘Smith in its historical context and shows that the latter-day seer’s statements on the background of that divine manifestation are compatible with its historical setting at every point. This book is the most recently published response to a charge that was made a few years ago that Joseph Smith fabricated the story of the first vision several years after it allegedly occurred…. It is followed by a treatment of the several accounts of the first vision that have come down to us from Joseph Smith’s day. The full statements of these accounts are given as appendix materials, and for this reason this volume is an important source of reference materials”

1971 Richard L. Anderson, "Heritage of a Prophet". Ensign February 1971, page 15-19 He begins by referring to "The Prophet Joseph Smith's first known autobiographical sketch...."; in the footnote he refers to the 1832 Manuscript History, in Dean Jessee, "The early accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision,' BYU Studies 9 (Spring 1969): 279 [below]. He doesn't quote the first vision portion of it, but quotes the part about being born 'of goodly parents, who spared no pains to instruct me in the Christian religion'. The article then deals with his grandparents on both sides.

1971 Dean C. Jessee “How Lovely Was the Morning”, Review of Joseph Smith's First Vision: The First Vision in its Historical Context. By Milton V. Backman, Jr. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1971). Dialogue, 6.1(Spring 1971): 85-88. “Ten of the fifteen documents reproduced in the Appendix are accounts of the First Vision as recorded by Joseph Smith or those who heard him relate it. These are the 1832, 1835, 1838, and Wentworth accounts, the first publication of the event by Orson Pratt in England in 1840, a translation from a pamphlet published by Orson Hyde in Germany in 1842, a non-Mormon account based upon an interview with Joseph Smith and published in the New York Spectator in 1843, Alexander Neibaur's diary notation of his hearing Joseph relate the incident on 24 May 1844…” [the remaining accounts are late reminiscences]

1971 Milton V. Backman, Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision. The First Vision in its Historical Context (Bookcraft 1971; 2nd edition, revised and enlarged 1980)

1970 Richard L. Anderson, “The Trustworthiness of Young Joseph Smith”, Improvement Era (October 1970): 82-9. [primarily deals with knowledge of Moroni’s visit, not the first vision; but does refer to the 1832 version; the November 9, 1835 interview; the Wentworth letter, 1842; Lucy Mack Smith 1853, as well as two articles from the 1969 BYU Studies special issue, by Anderson and Jessee, below].

1970 Richard L. Anderson, “Confirming Records of Moroni’s Coming”, Improvement Era (September 1970): 4-8. “The past few years have seen intense study of the First Vision by Latter-day Saint scholars and the consequent publication of several little-known narratives of Joseph Smith’s earliest spiritual experience. However, every major record of the First Vision continues its narrative through the coming of Moroni. Therefore, recently publicized records of the First Vision also permit the visions concerning the Book of Mormon to be told in greater depth. First it is necessary to review the five sources that detail Moroni’s first appearances:

1.The most important account of the early visions is also the most widely used [1838, published in Times and Seasons March 14, 1842]

2.Next in importance is the earliest known manuscript record of the early visions. Through the invaluable work of Dean Jessee, of the Church Historians Office, it has been known that this account was written in either 1831 or 1832. However, he has recently discovered that the recorder (Frederick G. Williams) did not begin to write for the Prophet until the later date. This earliest manuscript history is therefore fixed at 1832. This early attempt at official history is more detailed than any other account except the ‘History of Joseph Smith’ [1842; now in PofGP]

3.In 1842, the Prophet approved for publication the Wentworth Letter, a summary of the main points of Church history up to that time….

4.The spontaneous quality of a personal conversation with Joseph Smith is preserved in the 1835 record of the interview with the notorious pretender ‘Joshua, the Jewish minister…. The 1835 conversation was taken down at the time by Warren Cowdery.

5.The first published history of the coming of Moroni appeared in letter form in the Messenger and Advocate in 1835. Its author was Oliver Cowdery, but its wealth of detail must be attributed largely to the Prophet….

Because critics of Joseph Smith have misused the Cowdery letters, it is important to stress their limitations. Like many writers, Oliver Cowdery aspired to more than he could perform. His preface envisioned ‘a full history of the rise of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, and the most interepesting parts of its progress….’ What he actually produced, however, was a history of the years in which the Book of Mormon was revealed and delivered for translation, 1823 to 1827. Skeptics assert that Joseph Smith did not have a First Vision because Oliver Cowdery did not narrate it…. Although Oliver Cowdery apparently began to narrate the background of the First Vision, he shifted his chronology and jumped from 1820 to 1823—we do not know why” (5) “The records discussed above make it obvious that Latter-day Saint history is in the process of its own correlation program. Multiple narratives of major events challenge historians to the hard work of collecting and the hard thinking of comparing” (6) In his footnotes Professor Anderson cites the following articles: BYU Studies 9 (Spring 1969), articles by Dean C. Jessee Richard L. Anderson 1966 [see under date] James B. Allen, “Eight Contemporary Accounts…” Improvement Era April 1970.

1970 President Loren C. Dunn, of the First Council of the Seventy, “A Prophet’s Story”, General Conference April 1970, Improvement Era June 1970: 48. [Quotes from BYU Studies, 9 (Spring 1969): 235: “’the sweet dream of a pure-minded boy.’”]

1970 James B. Allen, “Eight Contemporary Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision. What do we learn from them?” Improvement Era 73.4 (April 1970): 4-13; In addition to the article itself, it contains a chart comparing the following versions: 1832, 1835, 1838, Pratt 1840, Hyde 1842, Wentworth, NY Spectator 1843, Neibaur 1843. “The differences between the accounts may be grossly overemphasized, for the truth is that there is wide and general agreement in detail among all of them” Includes a chart comparing the various versions.

1969 Dean C. Jessee, “The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 9 (Spring 1969): 275-94. Contains text of 1832, Cowdery 1834, Nov. 9,1835, November 14, 1835, 1838, 1842 (Wentworth).

1969 Milton V. Backman, Jr., “Awakenings in the Burned-Over District: New Light on the Historical Setting of the First Vision,” Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 9 (spring, 1969): 301-320

LDS-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision (1910-1968)

1967 Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price (Deseret Book, 1967). Quotes first vision account from Wentworth letter (“a later account”), and from the canonized version interchangeably: 44-45. Quotes both versions again later in the book, again interchangeably (“another account”): 426-7.

1967 Milton V. Backman, Jr., “Joseph Smith, Popularizer… or Restorer?”, Improvement Era (March 1967): 58-61; to be continued Quotes from the version published in Times and Seasons April 1, 1842 [canonized in 1880]; also cites Orson Pratt’s pamphlet, ‘An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions’, from the 1841 U.S edition [first published in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1840; this is the first published version of the first vision]

1966 Bruce R. McConkie, “And I Saw Another Angel,” General Conference October 1966, Improvement Era (December 1966): 1139-40. Quotes first vision and Moroni material from Wentworth letter, but without telling his audience he is doing so. [One wonders if the audience noticed the difference]

1966 James B. Allen, “The Significance of Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’ in Mormon Thought,’ Dialogue 1 (1966): 29-45. “In connection with the story of the vision, then, it is important to ask certain questions: When was it first told? When was it first published? Did it have the significant place in early Mormon thought that it has today? If not, when did it begin to take on its present significance in the writings and teachings of the Church?” (30) He mentions 1843 New York Spectator; 1844 Daniel Rupp book; Wentworth Letter; official history, begun 1838, published 1842; he mentions the Neibaur diary [1844]; 1832 which had just come to light the previous year; November 9, 1835; Orson Pratt (1840); Orson Hyde (1842 German); as well as some late reminiscences, e.g., William Smith (1883); Edward Stevenson (1893); Lorenzo Snow (1901). “In conclusion, this essay perhaps demonstrates the need for new approaches to Mormon history by sympathetic Mormon historians….. In short, the writing of Mormon history has only begun.”

1966 Richard L. Anderson, “Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision through Reminiscences”, BYU Studies 9 (1966): 373-404. There are four official accounts of the First Vision from the Prophet…. their dates of composition are 1831-32, 1835, and 1838. This 1838 account was published as the "History of Joseph Smith" in 1842. Anderson also refers to Orson Pratt 1840; Lucy Mack Smith 1853. He also discusses Oliver Cowdery 1834, and William Smith, as well as several non-LDS writers of the day.

1965 Milton V. Backman, Jr., American Religions and the Rise of Mormonism (Salt Lake City, Utah Deseret Book Company1965) “ In the spring of 1820, a fourteen-year-old farm boy, Joseph Smith ….Therefore, adhering to the admonition of James, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God," Joseph sought an answer to his quest through vocal prayer. In the serenity of a beautiful grove, the boy knelt in prayer. "I was enrapt in a heavenly vision," Joseph stated, "and saw two glorious personages, who exactly resembled each other in features and likeness." One of the personages called him by name and said, "This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" Then, Christ informed Joseph that "all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom." He was promised that if he remained worthy "the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto [him.]" (312, citing Joseph Smith, "Latter Day Saints," Rupp's Original History, 404-5;Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, B. H. Roberts, ed. (2nd ed. rev., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1959-60) I, 3-6). [This must have been one of the earliest citations for Rupp, who had requested an account of the rise and progress of the church; it was published in 1844, and reprinted several times over the next several years. It was also published in Millennial Star 22 (1860): 102-105]

1965 Paul R. Cheesman, An analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith’s Early Visions (Master’s Thesis, BYU 1965). This thesis contained the first publication of the 1832 account.

1964 William E. Berrett, The Restored Church. A Brief History of the Growth and Doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Deseret Book Company 1964. 12th edition; 10th edition 1961). [Author writes that this was first published in shorter form in 1936 to be used in Seminaries; in 1944 he combined it with another book, Doctrines of the Restored Church. This is the 10th edition, now the 12th] He begins by quoting from both the original History of Joseph Smith, which he says was begun in 1838, and published in Times and Seasons 1842, and the Wentworth letter (7). However, strangely enough, he gives the wrong dates for both these texts: The History in T&S 1843; the Letter in T&S March 15, 1842. In fact, the Letter was published March 1, 1842; the History began publication March 15, 1842.

1964 Carter E. Grant, “Story of the Church. New York-Pennsylvania Period”, Improvement Era (November 1964): 932-7. First vision account from both the canonized version and the Wentworth letter, first published in March 1, 1842 (934-5).

1963 “The Prophet Joseph Seen Through the Eyes of Youth”, Improvement Era (July 1963): 629. Quotes Edward Stevenson’s 1893 reminiscence of hearing the Prophet speak in 1834 in Pontiac, Michigan, testifying that the “Prophet testified with great power concerning the visit of the Father and the Son, and the conversation he had with them.”

1962 Preston Nibley, “The Wentworth Letter,” Improvement Era (February 1962): 96-7, 114, 116, 118. First vision on page 114.

1961 Hugh Nibley, “Censoring the Joseph Smith Story,” concluding installment, Improvement Era (July –November 1961). Discusses over 50 anti-LDS books and articles, and how they ‘censor’ the story by neglecting the first vision account, or by twisting it. Concludes with a Tanner publication which cited November 14, 1835, but neglects November 9, 1835, which Nibley quotes. Begins with: “Joseph Smith's "official" account of his first vision and the visits of the angel Moroni was written in 1838 and first published in the Times and Seasons in 1842” (Era July 1961: 490). Nibley also makes reference to his grandfathers diary (Niebaur account)

1960 Francis W. Kirkham, A New Witness For Christ in America. The Book of Mormon. Evidence of Divine Power in the ’Coming Forth’ of the Book of Mormon (Brigham Young University 1960). First published 1942; reprinted 1943; Enlarged second edition 1947; enlarged third edition 1951. This is volume One. Keep in mind: these two volumes deal with the Book of Mormon; first vision material is important, but tangential. “[There] are two accounts written and compiled by Joseph Smith. The one is a long serial history of the Church containing a complete account of his own life…. And the organization and establishment of the Church in sequence down to May, 1838. It was first published in the Times and Seasons beginning March 15, 1842…. Another is a letter to Mr. John Wentworth, editor and proprietor of the Chicago Democrat published in the Times and Seasons, March 1, 1842” (page 17-18; the first account is quoted at length pages 45-51) The relevant portion of the Wentworth letter is quoted page 52 note. William Smith’s 1893 statement is quoted 43-44. Volume 2 was published by Kirkham himself, in 1951; republished by Brigham Young University 1959. Quotes the March 15, 1842 account extensively, 17-8 Refers to the first publication by Orson Pratt, in Scotland, 1840 (18-9)

1960 Hyrum L. Andrus, Joseph Smith, the Man and the Seer (Deseret Book, 1960). He quotes from William Smith interview in November 1893 (Deseret News January 20, 1894), and Oliver Cowdery letters (Messenger and Advocate Dec. 1834), both of which relate the Rev. George Lane preaching about which church to join. Andrus then quotes at length the official version; he then quotes from the Orson Pratt pamphlet of 1840, and in the footnote refers to several sermons by Pratt discussing the first vision (JD 12. 354-6; 14. 141; 15. 181; 17. 279; 22. 29). Andrus quotes several late reminiscences, including Edward Stevenson from 1893 (65-68)

1960 John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations 2nd edition (Bookcraft 1960): 338 Orson Pratt, who lived for some time in the Prophet's home issued a pamphlet in 1839, in which the first vision is described, and it is there placed in 1820. (Orson Pratt, Remarkable Visions, pp. 4, 5) Later in life, Orson Pratt said, "I have often heard him (the Prophet) relate it." (Journal of Discourses 7:220-221; 11:65-66; 12:302; 14:150-141; 15:180-182). Widtsoe also cites Lucy Mack Smith’s 1853 version (from the 1902 edition); also from Edward Stevenson’s 1893 “reminiscence”. He also cites William Smith’s interview, published in 1894

1951 John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Smith--Seeker after Truth, Prophet of God (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1951); Chapter 5, cites: William Smith, Deseret News, January 20, 1894. Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith the Prophet, 1902 edition, pp. 73-77; 1945 edition, pp. 69-74. Edward Stevenson, Reminiscences of Joseph, the Prophet, p. 4. Isabella B. Horne, Young Women's Journal, vol. 32, p. 212; Relief Society Magazine, vol. 38, p. 158. Erastus Holmes, DHC., vol. 2, p. 312; Journal History, Saturday, November 14, 1835. Orson Pratt, Remarkable Visions, pp. 4-5; Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp. 220-221; vol. 11, pp. 65-66; vol. 12, p. 302; vol. 14, pp. 140-141; vol. 15, pp. 18-82; N. B. Lundwall, Masterful Discourses and Writings of Orson Pratt, pp. 235-236. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 354. Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 29; John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom, p. 121; Wilford Woodruff, Leaves from my Journal, first edition, p. 86; George A. Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, p. 334; vol. 13, p. 78; vol. 11, pp. 1-2.

1949 Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, volume 4: A Course of Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums (Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1949) With reference to the Wentworth letter Elder Smith wrote: “The Prophet was inspired in the preparation of this sketch of the rise of the Church. This is the first article, as far as we know, ever furnished by request of an outside publication portraying the rise and progress of the Church. In the year 1838, the Prophet commenced preparing his history which was written in the manuscript record of the Church. This Wentworth article was published in the "Times and Seasons" in Nauvoo, in the issue of March 1, 1842. It is a remarkable document for its breadth and the thoroughness of its contents in compact form…..The Prophet commences his story by stating where he was born, and his removal to Manchester where he engaged in farming which he was taught by his father. When he was about fourteen years of age he began to reflect upon the importance of "being prepared for a future state," and therefore sought among the ministers, for knowledge concerning the plan of salvation. He found them in hopeless confusion, "each one pointing to his own particular creed as the summum bonum of perfection." He reached the conclusion, which all men of reasoning ability should be able to reach, that they could not all be right for God could not be the author of confusion. The story is a familiar one to all members of the Church, how he sought for light and after reading the counsel of James, received the inspiration to put that prophet's words to the test. The vision of the Father and the Son which came in answer to his earnest pleading filled his soul with the deepest joy. He told it to an unbelieving world thinking that such great knowledge so essentially beneficial to all men, would be received gladly; instead it brought down persecution on his head.”

1948 Elder Milton R. Hunter, Conference Report, April 1948, Morning Meeting, p.25-6 Let us consider a few examples of prophecies made by Joseph Smith and their fulfilment. When but a boy slightly past fourteen years of age, Joseph returned to the house from .the Sacred Grove on that memorable spring morning in 1820. He told the members of his family that he had seen the Eternal Father and his Only Begotten Son in a vision. During the course of that vision, he had been informed by the Savior that the true Church was not upon the earth (HC 1:2-6 ) and that if he lived a worthy life he was given. . . a promise that the fullness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto [him] me. ("The Wentworth Letter," cited in ibid., 4:536.)

1948 Milton R. Hunter PhD. Pearl of Great Price Commentary (Salt Lake City, Utah: Stevens & Wallis, Inc., 1948). Dr. Hunter reports that the Pearl of Great Price “gives the Prophet Joseph Smith’s own story of… the visitation of God the Father and His Only Begotten Son to the boy-prophet in answer to his humble prayer” (5) “In the spring of 1838, the Prophet Joseph Smith began to write his history…. The first of this narrative to appear came from the press on March 15, 1842…. It was published in the Times and Seasons, beginning in volume 3, number 10, page 726, and continued in succeeding issues until February 15, 1846. By the latter date, the events up to August, 1834, had been printed.” It was continued in Utah, with Deseret News November 15, 1851 (225) “In 1851 Franklin D. Richards took extracts from the Times and Seasons’ account… and published that material in the Pearl of Great Price” (226). Hunter reports that the Wentworth Letter was published in Times and Seasons March 1, 1842. “It traces in an admirable manner the story of the ‘First Vision’….” (240).

1944 Preston Nibley, Joseph Smith the Prophet (Salt Lake City, 1944), 31, quotes New York Spectator, September 23, 1843. It was not yet known to have been a reprint of an earlier article in the Pittsburgh Gazette.

1917 Brigham H. Roberts, “Christ in the Traditions of American Native Races. Part XI-Modern Visits of the Christ in America.” Improvement Era 20. 7 (May 1917). Cites both History of the Church 1. 5-6; and Wentworth Letter for first vision.

1910 Ben. E. Rich, ed., Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, 2 vols., 2: 20-21. Quotes the Wentworth account of the first vision in its entirety. [The date of publication for this two volume collection is unknown, but early 20th century]

1910 Brigham H. Roberts. “The Morning of the Restoration.” Improvement Era 14. 2 (December 1910). Cites both the canonized version (both Pearl of Great Price, and History of the Church), and the Wentworth Letter (from History of the Church, and its inclusion in George A. Smith, Answers to Questions, 1869).

Brigham H. Roberts, The Missouri Persecutions, p.i (no date given) Uses the Wentworth account for the first vision story. Footnote to chapter one.

"The dates / his ages are all over the place"

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 35, 339-340 n.76. ( Index of claims ) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 156–59.( Index of claims ) Wikipedia article "First Vision"–Primary editors: COgden and John Foxe, with additional contributions by multiple editors. ( FAIR's Analysis of this Wikipedia article)

"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"

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 27, 493 n.23 ( Index of claims ) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 164.( Index of claims ) Christian Research and Counsel, “Documented History of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” full-color pamphlet, 10 pages. [There is a notation within this pamphlet indicating that research and portions of text were garnered from Utah Lighthouse Ministry]

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

Template:CESLetterItem

"The historical record shows that there was no revival in Palmyra in 1820"

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about Latter-day Saint temples

Baptism for the dead	Overview Baptism for the dead in early Christianity Opposition to baptism for the dead
The temple endowment	The temple endowment Similarities between ancient and modern temple rituals The temple garment Temple ceremonial clothing Changes to the temple endowment Relationship between the temple endowment and Freemasonry Source of the temple endowment Application of the endowment
Temple sealings	Temple sealings and exaltation Latter-day Saint interpretation of "neither marry nor given in marriage" Paul on marriage in 1 Corinthians 7
Other topics	Money spent on temples Symbolism in Latter-day Saint Temples Elias and Elijah at the Kirtland Temple Spiritual manifestations at the dedication of the Kirtland temple The temple in Independence, Missouri Temples in early Christianity Temples facing east

Detailed response to CES Letter, First Vision

Question: Why does the Church spend so much money on temples?

Presiding Bishop Gerald Causse explained the Church's purpose and its focus on how it uses its financial resources:

We are not a financial institution or a commercial corporation. We are the Church of Jesus Christ, and this Church has no other objective than that which the Lord Himself assigned to it—namely, to invite all to “come unto Christ, and be perfected in him,” by “helping members live the gospel of Jesus Christ, gathering Israel through missionary work, caring for the poor and needy, and enabling the salvation of the dead by building temples and performing vicarious ordinances.”

In addition, President Russell M. Nelson taught,

The good this Church accomplishes around the world to alleviate human suffering and provide uplift for humankind is widely known. But its prime purpose is to help men, women, and children follow the Lord Jesus Christ, keep His commandments, and qualify for the greatest of all blessings—that of eternal life with God and their loved ones.

Latter-day Saints believe that these blessings are possible through certain ordinances (rituals) and covenants (promises). These ordinances and covenants are only available in specially designated places, called temples, as explained by the Prophet Joseph Smith:

The main object was to build unto the Lord a house whereby He could reveal unto His people the ordinances of His house and the glories of His kingdom, and teach the people the way of salvation; for there are certain ordinances and principles that, when they are taught and practiced, must be done in a place or house built for that purpose.

Three Possible Reasons

It is important to remember these doctrines when considering why the Church spends so much money on temples. There are three possible reasons.

First: The Lord commanded it. In a revelation to Joseph Smith, the Lord commanded:

Come ye, with all your gold, and your silver, and your precious stones, and with all your antiquities; and with all who have knowledge of antiquities, that will come, may come, and bring the box tree, and the fir tree, and the pine tree, together with all the precious trees of the earth; and with iron, with copper, and with brass, and with zinc, and with all your precious things of the earth; and build a house to my name, for the Most High to dwell therein. . . . And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people.

Second: To honor God. In the revelation cited above, the Lord called for a house to be built "for the Most High to dwell therein." A member of the Seventy explained: "By requiring exacting standards of construction down to the smallest of details, we not only show our love and respect for the Lord Jesus Christ, but we also hold out to all observers that we honor and worship Him whose house it is."

Third: To show how much God honors us. In the revelation cited above, the Lord explained that in His house He would "reveal mine ordinances." These ordinances (and their associated covenants) are gifts from God to His children that provide them with greater knowledge, power, direction, and peace. Consider how you would feel if God wanted to give you these blessings in a dingy, dirty, broken-down building. You would likely feel that God doesn't respect you and that His blessings aren't really worth very much. By building temples with the "precious things of the earth," we show how much God values us and the incredible blessings He is providing to us.

Notes

"Why did Joseph hold a Trinitarian view of the Godhead, as shown previously with the Book of Mormon, if he clearly saw that the Father and Son were separate embodied beings in the official First Vision?"

"God" changed to "Son of God" in the Book of Mormon

Jump to details:

• Question: What changes were made to the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon?
• Question: Why did Joseph Smith make changes to the Book of Mormon such as modifying "God" to read "the Son of God"?
• Question: Why did Joseph Smith change the wording in Mormon 7:7 from "is one God" to "are one God"?
• Question: Were any of these changes made in reaction to sectarian criticism?

Template:CESLetterItem

Template:CESLetterItem

Template:CESLetterItem

1. REDIRECT Did Joseph have lustful motives for practicing polygamy?/Further Reading

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Christian Research and Counsel, "Documented History of Joseph Smith's First Vision," full-color pamphlet, 10 pages. [There is a notation within this pamphlet indicating that research and portions of text were garnered from Utah Lighthouse Ministry]

"There is absolutely no record of a First Vision prior to 1832"

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about Joseph Smith's First Vision

Accounts	Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision Multiple accounts of the First Vision Differences in First Vision accounts
Historical context	Events leading to the First Vision Events after the First Vision
Doctrinal impact	The First Vision and doctrine Seldom taught before 1877?

Did Joseph Smith begin his prophetic career with a "trinitarian" idea of God?

Joseph and the early Saints were not trinitarian, and understood God's embodiment and the identity of the Father and Son as separate beings very early on

This doctrine is apparent in the Book of Mormon, and in the earliest friendly and non-friendly accounts of such matters from the Saints.

Such texts demonstrate that the supposed 'evidence' for Joseph altering his story later is only in the eyes of critical beholders. For example, Joseph's 1832 First Vision account focuses on the remission of his sins. However, critics who wish to claim that in 1832 Joseph had only a vaguely "trinitarian" idea of God (and so would see the Father and the Son as only one being) have missed vital evidence which must be considered.

Martin Harris remembered rejecting the ideas of creedal Trinitarianism prior to meeting Joseph

Martin dictated an account of his early spiritual search:

52 years ago I was Inspired of the Lord & Tought of the Spirit that I should not Join Eny Church although I Was anxiousley Sought for by meny of the Secatirans[.] I Was taught I could not Walk togther unless agreed[.] What can you not be agreed in [is] in the Trinity because I can not find it in my Bible[.] find it for me & I am Ready to Receive it. 3 Persons in one god[.] one Personage I can not concede for this is Antichrist for Where is the Father & Son[?] I have more proof to Prove 9 Persons in the Trinity then you have 3[.]...other sects the Epicopalians also tired me[.] they say 3 Persons in one god Without Body Parts or Passions[.] I Told them such A god I would not be afraid of: I could not Please or offend him[.] [I] Would not be afraid to fight A Duel With such A god.

It would be very strange for Martin to feel so strongly on this point, only to embrace Joseph's teachings if Joseph taught creedal trinitarianism.

1829 - The Book of Mormon

Christ Descends from Heavens

The Book of Mormon also 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.

Resurrection is Permanent Through Christ

Alma 11:45 makes clear that the resurrection is permanent and Mosiah 15:20 (along with several others) makes clear that the resurrection is brought about through Christ.

I and the Father are One to Three Nephites

In 3 Nephi 28:10 the Savior is speaking to the 3 Nephites. After declaring that they would never endure the pains of death he states:

And for this cause ye shall have fullness of joy; and he shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fullness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one.

Since the verse is juxtaposed closely with not tasting death and the Savior stating that they would be even as he and the Father are, this verse may be used to argue for an embodied Christ and God (and likely an early conceptualization of deification) in the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, the phrase "fullness of joy" is used in D&C 93:33 (a revelation dated to 1833) to describe element (or man’s tabernacle as v. 35 expresses) and spirit inseparably connected.

1830 - Book of Moses: "And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten"

Between June and October 1830, Joseph had dictated his revision (the "Joseph Smith Translation") to Genesis. The first chapter of Moses was dictated in June 1830 (about a month after the Church's reorganization), and began:

2 And [Moses] saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence.

3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?

4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease.

5 Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth.

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all (Moses 1꞉2-6)

Here already, God distinguishes himself from the Only Begotten, Moses sees and speaks with God face to face, and says that Moses was created "in the similitude of mine Only Begotten."

Joseph's rendered Genesis 1:26 as:

And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so....And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. (Moses 2꞉26-27.)

There can be no doubt that Joseph understood "in mine own image" to refer to a physical likeness, rather than merely a moral or intellectual one. The JST of Genesis 5:1-2 reads

In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; in the image of his own body, male and female, created he them (Moses 6꞉8-9, emphasis added)

Thus, by 1830 Joseph was clearly teaching a separation of the Father and Son, and insisting that both had some type of physical form which could be copied in the creation of humanity.

Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, also noted that other Christian denominations took issue with the new Church because of its teachings about God, noting that in 1830:

the different denominations are very much opposed to us.... The Methodists also come, and they rage, for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle.

1831 - Joseph "saw the heavens opened, and the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Father"; D&C 50:43

Anti-Mormon writers in 1831 noted that Joseph claimed to have received "a commission from God"; and the Mormons claimed that Joseph "had seen God frequently and personally." That Joseph's enemies knew he claimed to have "seen God," indicates that the doctrine of an embodied God that could be seen was well-known early on.

John Whitmer would also write in 1831 of a vision enjoyed by Joseph in which Joseph saw Christ as separate from the Father, for he "saw the heavens opened, and the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Father making intercession for his brethren, the Saints." (emphasis added) Of this same experience, Levi Hancock wrote:

Joseph Smith then stepped out onto the floor and said, 'I now see God, and Jesus Christ at his right hand, let them kill me, I should not feel death as I am now.' (emphasis added)

Doctrine and Covenants 50, a revelation given to Joseph Smith in May 1831, states in the 43rd verse that:

And the Father and I are one, I am in the Father and the Father in me; and inasmuch as ye have received me, ye are in me and I in you.

This is interesting as, notwithstanding the verse being one that teaches the 'oneness' of the Father and the Son, it is not that of Modalism [nor the forms of Trinitarianism referred to by critics when making this argument against Joseph Smith]; instead, it is the same as John 17:22-23—one of indwelling unity, not being the same person.

1832 - In the 1832 account of the First Vision, Jesus announces to Joseph that he will come "clothed in the glory of my Father"

One should first note that in the 1832 account of the First Vision, Jesus announces to Joseph that he will come "clothed in the glory of my Father." The Book of Mormon (translated three years earlier in 1829) also contains numerous passages which teach a physical separation and embodiment (even if only in spirit bodies, which are clearly not immaterial, but have shape, position, and form) of the members of the Godhead. (See: 3 Nephi 11, 1 Nephi 11꞉1-11, Ether 3꞉14-18.)

Furthermore, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were to receive a revelation of the three degrees of glory in the same year as Joseph's 1832 account was written; it clearly teaches a physical separation of the Father and Son, bearing witness of seeing both. (See D&C 76꞉14,20–24.)

1832–1833 - "Joseph answered that this was Jesus, the Son of God, our elder brother"

Two of Joseph's close associates reported their own visions of God in the winter of 1832–1833. Both are decidedly not in the trinitarian mold.

Zebedee Coltrin:

Joseph having given instructions, and while engaged in silent prayer, kneeling...a personage walked through the room from East to west, and Joseph asked if we saw him. I saw him and suppose the others did, and Joseph answered that this was Jesus, the Son of God, our elder brother. Afterward Joseph told us to resume our former position in prayer, which we did. Another person came through; He was surrounded as with a flame of fire. [I] experienced a sensation that it might destroy the tabernacle as it was of consuming fire of great brightness. The Prophet Joseph said this was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I saw him...

He was surrounded as with a flame of fire, which was so brilliant that I could not discover anything else but his person. I saw his hands, his legs, his feet, his eyes, nose, mouth, head and body in the shape and form of a perfect man. He sat in a chair as a man would sit in a chair, but This appearance was so grand and overwhelming that it seemed that I should melt down in His presence, and the sensation was so powerful that it thrilled through my whole system and I felt it in the marrow of my bones. The Prophet Joseph said: "Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages."

John Murdock:

During the winter that I boarded with[Bro[ther] Joseph... we had a number of prayer meetings, in the Prophet’s chamber.... In one of those meetings the Prophet told us if we could humble ourselves before God, and exersise [sic] strong faith, we should see the face of the Lord. And about midday the visions of my mind were opened, and the eyes of my understanding were enlightened, and I saw the form of a man, most lovely, the visage of his face was sound and fair as the sun. His hair a bright silver grey, curled in a most majestic form, His eyes a keen penetrating blue, and the skin of his neck a most beautiful white and he was covered from the neck to the feet with a loose garment, pure white, whiter than any garment I had ever before seen. His countenance was the most penetrating, and yet most lovely. And while I was endeavoring to comprehend the whole personage from head to feet it slipped from me, and the vision was closed up. But it left on my mind the impression of love, for months, that I never felt before to that degree.

1834–1835 - Lectures on Faith: "There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things"

In the School of the Prophets, the brethren were taught that

There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made. . . . They are the Father and the Son—the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fulness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle. (Lecture 5:1–2)

Here, the separateness of the Father and Son continues to be made clear.

1836 - "They believe that the true God is a material being, composed of body and parts"

A skeptical news article noted:

They believe that the true God is a material being, composed of body and parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself....

Evidence that is absent

In addition to all the non-trinitarian evidence above, as Milton Backman has noted, there is a great deal of evidence that we should find, but don't. For example, no one has "located a publication (such as an article appearing in a church periodical or statement from a missionary pamphlet) written by an active Latter-day Saint prior to the martyrdom of the Prophet that defends the traditional or popular creedal concept of the Trinity. . . ." Moreover, there are no references in critical writings of the 1830s (including statements by apostates) that Joseph Smith introduced in the mid-thirties the doctrine of separateness of the Father and Son.

See also:	Why did Joseph Smith change the wording in Mormon 7:7 from "is one God" to "are one God"?
	Mormonism and the nature of God/God is a Spirit/Lecture of Faith 5 teaches the Father is "a personage of spirit"
	Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"the Son of"

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

MormonThink.com website (as of 5 May 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm John Dehlin, "Questions and Answers," Mormon Stories Podcast (25 June 2014). Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 121–122. ( Index of claims ) O. Kendall White, Jr., Mormon Neorthodoxy: A Crisis Theology (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1987), ?.

Did Oliver Cowdery state that Joseph did not know if a "supreme being" existed in 1823?

In the first installment of his history published in December 1834, Oliver established Joseph's age as 14 and very accurately described the religious excitement leading up to the First Vision

Oliver Cowdery began publishing a history of the Church in the Messenger and Advocate in December 1834 which is commonly misunderstood:

In 1834, Oliver Cowdery began publishing a history of the Church in installments in the pages of the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate. The first installment talks of the religious excitement and events that ultimately led to Joseph Smith’s First Vision at age 14. However, in the subsequent installment published two months later, Oliver claims that he made a mistake, correcting Joseph’s age from 14 to 17 and failing to make any direct mention of the First Vision. Oliver instead tells the story of Moroni’s visit, thus making it appear that the religious excitement led to Moroni’s visit.

This curious account has been misunderstood by some to be evidence that the "first" vision that Joseph claimed was actually that of the angel Moroni and that Joseph invented the story of the First Vision of the Father and Son at a later time. However, Joseph wrote an account of his First Vision in 1832 in which he stated that he saw the Lord, and there is substantial evidence that Oliver had this document in his possession at the time that he wrote his history of the Church. This essay demonstrates the correlations between Joseph Smith’s 1832 First Vision account, Oliver’s 1834/1835 account, and Joseph’s 1835 journal entry on the same subject. It is clear that not only did Oliver have Joseph’s history in his possession but that he used Joseph’s 1832 account as a basis for his own account. This essay also shows that Oliver knew of the First Vision and attempted to obliquely refer to the event several times in his second installment before continuing with his narrative of Moroni’s visit.

Two months later in the second installment published in February 1835, Oliver abruptly "corrects" Joseph's age from 14 to 17 years old, skips the First Vision and then proceeds instead to describe Moroni's visit

After spending the previous installment leading up to the First Vision, Oliver abruptly skips three years ahead and does not mention the vision directly. However, before describing Moroni's visit, Oliver even takes the time to minimize the importance of the religious excitement that he described in the previous installment, stating,

And it is only necessary for me to say, that while this excitement continued, he continued to call upon the Lord in secret for a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him.
Oliver Cowdery, Messenger and Advocate (February 1835)

The religious "excitement" that Oliver is describing is now portrayed as an event in the past, during which Joseph desired to know "if a Supreme being did exist"

Note carefully what Oliver is saying. The religious "excitement," and the event that Oliver described in the first installment when he said that Joseph was 14 years of age, was when Joseph was seeking a "full manifestation of divine approbation" with the desire to know "if a Supreme being did exist." Oliver then alludes to the First Vision in the past tense by saying,

This, most assuredly, was correct—it was right. The Lord has said, long since, and his word remains steadfast, that for him who knocks it shall be opened, & whosoever will, may come and partake of the waters of life freely.
Oliver Cowdery, Messenger and Advocate (February 1835)

Oliver is stating that something of significance happened in Joseph’s life prior to the events that Oliver would be describing next, and he assures the reader that "this, most assuredly, was correct." Oliver then proceeds to describe Moroni's visit to Joseph at age 17.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

MormonThink.com website (as of 5 May 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm David Persuitte, Joseph Smith and the Origins of The Book of Mormon (2nd edition), (McFarland & Company, October 2000), 24 ( Index of claims )

Is the fact that Latter-day Saint missionaries were teaching around 1 November 1830 that Joseph Smith had seen "God" personally a reference to having seen Jesus Christ, but not the Father?

The document which reports the missionaries’ teachings refers to "God" twice but also to "Christ" once and the "Holy Spirit" once

It cannot be successfully argued that before the missionaries made their statement in November 1830 Latter-day Saints would have understood "God" as a reference to Jesus Christ alone. When the missionaries (one of whom was Book of Mormon scribe Oliver Cowdery) were teaching that Joseph Smith had seen "God" personally they could have legitimately been referring to God the Father

The weakness of this argument is twofold. First and foremost, critics ignore the fact that the document which reports the missionaries’ teachingsrefers to "God" twice but also to "Christ" once and the "Holy Spirit" once. Hence, all three members of the Godhead appear to be represented individually in the document. In this context, a natural interpretation demands that "God" refer to the Father and the statement made by the missionaries would therefore mean that sometime before November 1830 Joseph Smith had seen God the Father "personally."

The Book of Mormon talks of Lehi having a vision of both "God" and Jesus Christ

The second problem with the critics’ argument is that the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants contain several contemporary texts that undercut their position. For instance, 1 Nephi 12꞉18 speaks of "the justice of the Eternal God, and the Messiah who is the Lamb of God, of whom the Holy Ghost beareth record." Here all three members of the Godhead are represented and "the Eternal God" is an obvious reference to God the Father. It becomes apparent from a reading of Alma 11꞉44, however, that this is a title that can be appropriately applied to all three divine Beings. This scriptural passage talks about being "arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God." This concept is paralleled in D&C 20꞉28—a text written about April 1830—which says that the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal."

The Book of Mormon also begins (1 Nephi 1꞉8-10) with Lehi's vision of God on his throne. One bright being [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" and Christ.

Even a contemporary hostile source reports that Joseph communicated with "Almighty God"

A hostile account from someone who knew Joseph in 1827 reported:

I, Joseph Capron, became acquainted with Joseph Smith, Sen. in the year of our Lord, 1827. They have, since then, been really a peculiar people—fond of the foolish and the marvelous—at one time addicted to vice and the grossest immoralities—at another time making the highest pretensions to piety and holy intercourse with Almighty God. The family of Smiths held Joseph Jr. in high estimation on account of some supernatural power, which he was supposed to possess.

Capron obviously dislikes and distrusts the Smiths, but he makes it clear that there were claims of holy intercourse (i.e., "communication" with) "Almighty God." This sounds much more like a reference to the Father than to Christ.

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "The Cowdery Conundrum: Oliver’s Aborted Attempt to Describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision in 1834 and 1835"

Roger Nicholson,  Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (December 6, 2013)

In 1834, Oliver Cowdery began publishing a history of the Church in installments in the pages of the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate. The first installment talks of the religious excitement and events that ultimately led to Joseph Smith’s First Vision at age 14. However, in the subsequent installment published two months later, Oliver claims that he made a mistake, correcting Joseph’s age from 14 to 17 and failing to make any direct mention of the First Vision. Oliver instead tells the story of Moroni’s visit, thus making it appear that the religious excitement led to Moroni’s visit.

This curious account has been misunderstood by some to be evidence that the "first" vision that Joseph claimed was actually that of the angel Moroni and that Joseph invented the story of the First Vision of the Father and Son at a later time. However, Joseph wrote an account of his First Vision in 1832 in which he stated that he saw the Lord, and there is substantial evidence that Oliver had this document in his possession at the time that he wrote his history of the Church. This essay demonstrates the correlations between Joseph Smith’s 1832 First Vision account, Oliver’s 1834/1835 account, and Joseph’s 1835 journal entry on the same subject. It is clear that not only did Oliver have Joseph’s history in his possession but that he used Joseph’s 1832 account as a basis for his own account. This essay also shows that Oliver knew of the First Vision and attempted to obliquely refer to the event several times in his second installment before continuing with his narrative of Moroni’s visit.

Click here to view the complete article

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board (January 2007). MormonThink.com website (as of 5 May 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm

How early was the story of the First Vision known among the members of the Church?

Claims made by critics regarding early knowledge of the First Vision

• It is claimed that "there is absolutely no record of a First Vision prior to 1832."
• It is claimed that there is "no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s."
• It is claimed that "Not a single piece of published literature (Mormon, non-Mormon, or anti-Mormon) from the 1830s mentions Smith having a vision of the Father and Son."
• If Joseph Smith's First Vision actually occurred, then why wouldn't it have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time? Since no such record exists, is this evidence that the vision must not have actually occurred?

There is evidence that Church members were aware of elements of the First Vision story as early as 1827

Several LDS commentators - including one member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles - agree that D&C 20:5 (part of the Articles and Covenants of the Church) is the earliest published reference to the First Vision story. The Articles and Covenants of the Church were presented to the Church membership and then published in the following order

• April-June 1829 - The Book of Mormon gave the first elements of the First Vision when translated in April-June 1829 and published in 1830. In 2 Nephi 27:24-27 we read:

24 And again it shall come to pass that the Lord shall say unto him that shall read the words that shall be delivered him:

25 Forasmuch as this people draw near unto me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their hearts far from me, and their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men—

26 Therefore, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, yea, a marvelous work and a wonder, for the wisdom of their wise and learned shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent shall be hid.

This scripture from Isaiah is exactly the scripture that Joseph either quotes or paraphrases in the 1832 and 1838 Account of the First Vision. Critics may dismiss this saying that it is simply a part of Joseph's fraudulent composition of the Book of Mormon but the verse still throws a huge wrench in their theories about there being no early mentions of the First Vision.

• The Articles and Covenants of the Church are first verbally presented by Joseph Smith for approval at a Church conference held in Fayette, New York on 9 June 1830 (see Cannon and Cook, Far West Record, 1). The following sequence is found in the Articles and Covenants: (1) forgiveness of sin, (2) entanglement in vanities of the world, (3) visit of an angel with regard to the Book of Mormon plates. This is the exact same sequence presented in the Prophet's unpublished 1832 history and the forgiveness of sins comes during the First Vision event in that document.
• The Articles and Covenants of the Church were read out loud by Oliver Cowdery during a Church conference on 26 September 1830 (see Cannon and Cook, Far West Record, 3).
• The Articles and Covenants of the Church were published in a non-LDS newspaper in Painesville, Ohio (Telegraph, 19 April 1831)
• The Articles and Covenants of the Church were published in an LDS newspaper in Independence, Missouri (Evening and Morning Star, vol. 1, no. 1, June 1832).
• The Articles and Covenants of the Church were published in an LDS newspaper in Independence, Missouri (Evening and Morning Star, vol. 2, no. 13, June 1833).
• The Book of Commandments—which contained the Articles and Covenants—was published in July 1833 in Independence, Missouri (chapter 24, verses 6-7, page 48).
• January 1835 Kirtland, Ohio reprint of an Evening and Morning Star article containing the "Articles and Covenants" (reprint of Evening and Morning Star, vol. 1, no. 1, June 1832, 2; reprinted by Frederick G. Williams).
• The first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants - which contained the Articles and Covenants - was published in September 1835 in Kirtland, Ohio (part 2, section 2, verse 2, pages 77-78).
• June 1836 Kirtland, Ohio reprint of an Evening and Morning Star article containing the "Articles and Covenants" of the Church (reprint of Evening and Morning Star, vol. 2, no. 1, June 1833, 1; reprinted by Oliver Cowdery).

FAIR Answers—back to home page

The Joseph Smith Papers: "The historical preamble to the 1830 'articles and covenants,'...appears to reference JS’s vision in speaking of a moment when 'it truly was manifested unto this first elder, that he had received a remission of his sins'"

"History, circa Summer 1832 - Historical Introduction," The Joseph Smith Papers:

In the early 1830s, when this history was written, it appears that JS had not broadcast the details of his first vision of Deity. The history of the church, as it was then generally understood, began with the gold plates. John Whitmer mentioned in his history "the commencement of the church history commencing at the time of the finding of the plates," suggesting that Whitmer was either unaware of JS’s earlier vision or did not conceive of it as foundational.5 Records predating 1832 only hint at JS’s earliest manifestation. The historical preamble to the 1830 "articles and covenants," for example, appears to reference JS’s vision in speaking of a moment when "it truly was manifested unto this first elder, that he had received a remission of his sins."6 Initially, JS may have considered this vision to be a personal experience tied to his own religious explorations. He was not accustomed to recording personal events, and he did not initially record the vision as he later did the sacred texts at the center of his attention. Only when JS expanded his focus to include historical records did he write down a detailed account of the theophany he experienced as a youth. The result was a simple, unpolished account of his first "marvilous experience," written largely in his own hand. The account was not published or widely circulated at the time, though in later years he told the story more frequently.

Why didn't the newspapers in Palmyra take notice of Joseph Smith's First Vision?

Pearl of Great Price Central, Joseph Smith - History Insight #12: Why Was Joseph Smith Initially Reluctant to Tell Others About the First Vision?

Newspapers would not have considered a visionary claim from a 14-year-old boy to have been newsworthy

This claim by critics is indeed strange. We are apparently to believe that the newspapers of the area would consider a claim from a 14-year-old boy as newsworthy. We know that Joseph didn't even tell his family about the vision at the time that it occurred—when his mother asked him, all he said to her was that he had found that Presbyterianism was not true.

When Joseph told the story of his vision to a local minister, he was strongly refuted for doing so

Joseph did, however, make mention of his vision to a Methodist preacher. According to Richard Bushman, Joseph's perceived persecution for telling his story may not have actually been because it was a unique claim, but rather because it was a common one. According to Bushman,

The clergy of the mainline churches automatically suspected any visionary report, whatever its content...The only acceptable message from heaven was assurance of forgiveness and a promise of grace. Joseph's report of God's rejection of all creeds and churches would have sounded all too familiar to the Methodist evangelical, who repeated the conventional point that "all such things had ceased with the apostles and that there never would be any more of them."

What references to the First Vision exist in published documents from the 1830s?

Pearl of Great Price Central, Joseph Smith - History Insight #12: Why Was Joseph Smith Initially Reluctant to Tell Others About the First Vision?

There are several significant references to the First Vision in published documents from the 1830s

1827

• A skeptical account from Rev. John A. Clark mixed nine First Vision story elements together with the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and said that he learned them all in the Fall of 1827 from Martin Harris (John A. Clark, Gleanings by the Way [Philadelphia: W. J. and J. K. Simmon, 1842],—-).

• A hostile account from someone who knew Joseph in 1827 reported:

I, Joseph Capron, became acquainted with Joseph Smith, Sen. in the year of our Lord, 1827. They have, since then, been really a peculiar people—fond of the foolish and the marvelous—at one time addicted to vice and the grossest immoralities—at another time making the highest pretensions to piety and holy intercourse with Almighty God. The family of Smiths held Joseph Jr. in high estimation on account of some supernatural power, which he was supposed to possess.

Capron obviously disliked and distrusted the Smiths, but he makes it clear that there were claims of holy intercourse (i.e., "communication" with) "Almighty God."

1829 -1830

• The Book of Mormon gave the first elements of the First Vision when published in 1830 (and translated in 1829). In 2 Nephi 27:24-27 we read:

24 And again it shall come to pass that the Lord shall say unto him that shall read the words that shall be delivered him:

25 Forasmuch as this people draw near unto me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their hearts far from me, and their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men—

26 Therefore, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, yea, a marvelous work and a wonder, for the wisdom of their wise and learned shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent shall be hid.

This scripture from Isaiah is exactly the scripture that Joseph either quotes or paraphrases in the 1832 and 1838 Account of the First Vision. Critics may dismiss this saying that it is simply a part of Joseph's fraudulent composition of the Book of Mormon but the verse still throws a huge wrench in their theories about there being no early mentions of the First Vision.

1831

• LDS missionaries were teaching that Joseph Smith "had seen God frequently and personally" and received a commission from Him to teach true religion (The Reflector, vol. 2, no. 13, 14 February 1831).

1832

• LDS missionaries were teaching with regard to Joseph Smith: "Having repented of his sins, but not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them, and being in doubt what his duty was, he had recourse [to] prayer" (The Fredonia Censor, vol. 11, no. 50, 7 March 1832).
• In October 1832, another Protestant minister wrote to a friend about the Latter-day Saints in his area: "They profess to hold frequent converse with angels; some go, if we may believe what they say, as far as the third heaven, and converse with the Lord Jesus face to face."

1833

• A few months later, in March of 1833, the Reverend Richmond Taggart wrote a letter to a ministerial friend, regarding the activities of Joseph Smith himself in Ohio: "The following Curious occurrance occurred last week in Newburg [Ohio] about 6 miles from this Place [Cleveland]. Joe Smith the great Mormonosity was there and held forth, and among other things he told them he had seen Jesus Christ and the Apostles and conversed with them, and that he could perform Miracles." Here is a clear reference to Joseph Smith stating he had seen Jesus Christ. Joseph’s ‘conversations’ with the Apostles could be a reference to having seen, spoken to, and been ordained to the Priesthood by the early Apostles Peter, James, and John. Having received that Priesthood Joseph Smith was now qualified to perform healings, and other ‘miracles’.
• A Missouri newspaper contains an article on a mass meeting of Latter-day Saints in July 1833, and refers to the Saints’ "pretended revelations from heaven… their personal intercourse with God and his angels… converse with God and his angels…."
• Philastus Hurlbut, following his excommunication from the Church in 1833, went east to Palmyra. He there interviewed many who claimed to have known Joseph Smith before the organization of the Church. Among those interviewed were some who left statements which give us more information on what the Prophet had been claiming at that early period. On November 3, 1833, Barton Stafford testified that Joseph had "professed to be inspired of the Lord to translate the Book of Mormon." Stafford claimed to have known them "until 1831 when they left this neighborhood." Five days later, on November 8, Joseph Capron testified that Joseph had made "the highest pretensions to piety and holy intercourse with Almighty God." In 1884 and 1885 Arthur B. Deming collected affidavits in the Painesville, Ohio area, regarding the early Saints, and their recollection of Joseph Smith. Cornelius R. Stafford had been born in Manchester, NY, in 1813. He testified that Joseph Smith "claimed to receive revelations from the Lord."

1834

• Oliver Cowdery published the beginning elements of the First Vision story as part of a history of the Church ((December 1834) Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 1:43.)

1835

• William W. Phelps published a reference to the First Vision in October 1835 in the Church's newspaper ((October 1835) Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 2:208.)

1836

• The First Vision reference by William W. Phelps was republished as part of hymn #26 in the Saints' first hymnal—March 1836 (see Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1176).

When the published 1830s fragments of the First Vision story are compared to the as-yet-unpublished 1838 recital, it becomes apparent that the Prophet's account of things stayed steady during this time frame and was probably known among a wider cross-section of the contemporary LDS population than has been previously acknowledged.

1834 - "the 15th year of his life" [Cowdery]

1838 - "I was at this time in my fifteenth year"

1834 - "There was a great awakening, or excitement raised on the subject of religion" [Cowdery]

1838 - "there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion"

1834 - "our brother's mind became awakened" [Cowdery]

1838 - "my mind was called up to serious reflection"

1834 - "his mother, one sister, and two of his natural brothers, were persuaded to unite with the Presbyterians" [Cowdery]

1838 - "My Fathers family were proselyted to the Presbyterian faith"

1834 - "his spirit was not at rest day nor night" [Cowdery]

1838 - "great uneasiness . . . extreme difficulties . . . my anxieties"

1832 - "not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them" [Missionaries]

1838 - "I kept myself aloof from all these parties"; "no small stir and division"

1834 - "he was told they were right, and all others were wrong" [Cowdery]

1838 - "who was right and who was wrong"

1834 - "a general struggle was made by the leading characters of the different sects" [Cowdery]

1838 - "priest contending against priest"

1834 - "Large additions were made to the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches" [Cowdery]

1838 - "multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties"

1835 - "the world in darkness lay" [Phelps]

1838 - "I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness"

1835 - "he sought the better way" [Phelps]

1838 - "I was one day reading the Epistle of James"

1832 - "being in doubt what his duty was" [Missionaries]

1838 - "I often said to myself, what is to be done?"

1832 - "he had recourse [to] prayer" [Missionaries]

1838 - "I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God"

1831 - "he had seen God . . . personally" [Missionaries]

1838 - "I saw two personages . . . One of them spake unto me calling me by name and said (pointing to the other) 'This is my beloved Son, Hear him'"

Here then are several early testimonies from friendly and non-LDS sources, confirming that Joseph Smith and/or the missionaries were talking about Joseph conversing with Jesus Christ, angels, Apostles (Peter, James and John?), and "Almighty God." Evidently the early Saints were doing a lot more talking about these things than the critics want their readers to know about.

Is there any mention of the First Vision in non-Mormon literature before 1843?

There are a number of reports in non-Latter-day Saint source which allude to the First Vision having occurred

The historical record supports the claim that the First Vision was mentioned in non-Mormon literature prior to 1843:

• Report in a non-LDS newspaper of Mormon missionaries teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God personally and received a commission from Him to teach true religion (The Reflector, vol. 2, no. 13, 14 February 1831).

• The "Articles and Covenants" of the Church - which contained a reference to something that happened during the First Vision - were published in a non-LDS newspaper (Telegraph, 19 April 1831).

• Report in a non-LDS newspaper that Mormon missionaries were teaching at least six of the beginning elements of the First Vision story (Fredonia Censor, vol. 11, no. 50, 7 March 1832).

• In April 1841 the British publication Athenæum (a literary weekly) reprinted material from Orson Pratt’s Interesting Account pamphlet.

• A non-LDS newspaper printed the first elements of the First Vision story. They were first reported in the Congregational Observer [Hartford and New Haven, Connecticut] and then reprinted in the Peoria Register and North-Western Gazetteer, vol. 5, no. 23, 3 September 1841.

• First Vision story elements from Orson Pratt's 1840 pamphlet were reprinted in The Museum of Foreign Literature, Science, and Art, vol. 14 (new series), no. 42, July 1841, 370. Philadelphia: E. Littell and Co. (copied from the 1841 Athenæum article called "The Book of Mormon and the Mormonites").

• When the Rev. John A. Clark published his autobiography he mixed nine First Vision story elements together with the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and said that he learned them all in the Fall of 1827 from Martin Harris (John A. Clark, Gleanings by the Way [Philadelphia: W. J. and J. K. Simmon, 1842],—-).

• A non-LDS college professor published the beginning story elements of the First Vision (Jonathan B. Turner, Mormonism in All Ages [New York: Platt and Peters, 1842], 14).

The majority of these reports are garbled, fragmentary, and out of proper context but this evidence still shows that the claim being made in the source cited above is not accurate.

If the First Vision story was known by the public before 1840, then would anti-Mormons "surely" have seized upon it as an evidence of Joseph Smith’s imposture?

The claim that critics of Joseph would have used the vision accounts is negated by the following evidence

• Daniel P. Kidder, Mormonism and the Mormons (New York City: Lane and Sandford, 1842), 334. The appendix heading explains that the author was drawing material from the January through June editions of the 1842 Times and Seasons (two separate First Vision stories were found in the March and April editions). Joseph Smith, as editor of the Times and Seasons, Kidder said, "commenced publishing his autobiography. It is, however, nothing but the old story about the plates and the angel, with a few emendations to save appearances."

• Quincy Whig, vol. 4, no. 46, 12 March 1842 – Acknowledgment that the "Wentworth Letter" had recently been published in the Times and Seasons on 1 March 1842. No mention is made of the First Vision story.

• The Morning Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 190, 24 March 1842 [Pittsburgh] – quotes from the "Wentworth Letter" directly before and after the First Vision material but completely ignores the story (focuses on Joseph Smith’s birthday and the Book of Mormon instead).

• John Hayward, The Book of Religions (Boston: John Hayward, 1842), 260-65, 271. This author indicates that he has possession of the Wentworth Letter and says, "we . . . are now enabled to tell [the] story [of the Latter-day Saints] in their own words." But he paraphrases the material about Joseph Smith's birth and background, completely skips over the First Vision story, provides lengthy quotes about the angel and the plates and even includes the Articles of Faith.

This is clear evidence that even if an anti-Mormon had multiple authoritative, unambiguous, printed copies of the First Vision story sitting right in front of them they would NOT necessarily seize upon it as evidence of an imposture. Some of them simply did NOT pay close attention to what Joseph Smith was saying openly.

Hugh Nibley pointed out years ago that anti-Mormon authors often went to great lengths to distort, ignore, or omit Joseph's telling of the visit of the Father and the Son.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 34. ( Index of claims ) Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 18 ( Index of claims ) Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 23. ( Index of claims ) MormonThink.com website (as of 5 May 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 245. ( Index of claims ) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 150.( Index of claims ) Wikipedia article "First Vision"–Primary editors: COgden and John Foxe, with additional contributions by multiple editors. ( FAIR's Analysis of this Wikipedia article) Documented History of Joseph Smith's First Vision, pamphlet, Christian Research & Counsel (St. Petersburg, Florida).

Was the First Vision fabricated to give Joseph Smith "Godly authority?"

It is claimed by some that Joseph Smith decided after he released the Book of Mormon to the public that he needed 'authority from God' to justify his claims as a religious minister

It is asserted by some that Joseph Smith fabricated the First Vision story in order to provide himself with a more prestigious line of authority than that of the "angel" who revealed the golden plates.

There is no doubt that before Joseph Smith produced his 1832 history of the Restoration he was telling other people that he had a directive from God to carry out a certain work and that he had received instruction directly from one of God's authorized representatives. Joseph Smith had no need to produce some type of authority claim by 'fabricating' the First Vision event in 1832. The line of Divine authority had already been long established.

Joseph Smith had no need to produce some type of authority claim by 'fabricating' the First Vision event in 1832

This theory does not stand up to close scrutiny. There are numerous contemporary and reminiscent documents which indicate that before Joseph Smith recorded his 1832 history (September-November 1832) he was claiming - both implicitly and explicitly - to have authority from God to carry out his ministry.

Notice in the citations below that when the angel who revealed the plates is mentioned he is identified as God's messenger. Thus, Joseph Smith's interaction is not simply with a nondescript angel; the angel is an authorized representative of Deity.

November 1826

• Joseph Smith "told us of God’s manifestations to him, of the discovery and receiving of the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated" (Newel Knight).

Spring 1827

• Joseph Smith specifically identifies the otherworldly messenger with whom he has been dealing as the angel of the Lord

Fall 1827

• Martin Harris states that it was an angel of God who visited Joseph Smith and revealed the golden plates to him and he also said that Joseph had been chosen by the Lord.

April 1828

• Palmyra townspeople state that "an angel of God" appeared to Joseph Smith.

1828

• Joseph Smith said that he received a revelation from God to tell him where the plates were concealed.
• Joseph Smith told his wife’s uncle that he had been commanded by God to translate the plates.
• Joseph Smith states that he is a prophet sent by God to gather Israel.
• Joseph Smith declares that his ability to translate the plates is a gift from God.

1829

• Joseph Smith wrote to members of his father’s family and told them that an angel of the Lord had revealed the gold book to him.
• Believers in Joseph Smith’s mission teach others that he has been visited by a messenger from "the Almighty".
• In the published statement of the Three Witnesses in the Book of Mormon (written ca. June 1829) it is said that it was "an angel of God" who showed them the golden plates.

April 1830

• Joseph Smith confirms in an official Church document that he had been "called of God" and "God ministered unto him by an holy angel" when the Book of Mormon plates were revealed.

1830

• Joseph Smith states that he has been entrusted by God.
• According to "the most credible reports" that a non-Mormon minister had heard "the angel indicated to [Joseph Smith] that the Lord [had] destined him" to carry out a certain work.

November 1830

• Joseph Smith had seen God "personally" and received a commission from God to preach the gospel.

August 1831

• Before the Book of Mormon translation was completed "the Lord" told Joseph Smith that it must be published.

September 1831

• The "chief Elders" in Kirtland, Ohio - including Joseph Smith - state that the Prophet had "held communion with an angel from God" with regard to the golden plates.

November 1831

• The Lord declares in the Doctrine and Covenants that He "called" Joseph Smith to be His servant (D&C 1꞉17).

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 31. ( Index of claims ) Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 248. ( Index of claims ) Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board (January 2007).

Did Joseph Smith’s account of the First Vision grow more detailed and more colorful after he first recorded it in 1832?

Joseph Smith's later tellings of the First Vision story were less detailed than his earlier ones

Joseph Smith actually omitted details from his earlier First Vision account in his later ones. For example, the presence of "many angels" in addition to the two main personages noted in the 9 November 1835 account is never noted in any subsequent account.

Even though some of Joseph Smith's critics believe that the First Vision story changing over time is evidence that it was fabricated to begin with, the documents provide for a different explanation. The core elements of the First Vision story do not change as time passes - they are simply being clarified by the addition of details. The Prophet did not seem too concerned about which explanatory notes were being presented to his audience at any particular time because the really important parts—the core elements—never changed.

24 story elements found in the 1832 account of the First Vision do not show up again in later accounts

The above claim is not accurate simply because 24 story elements found in the 1832 account do not show up again in later recitals. In other words, the story actually becomes significantly LESS detailed over time because it does not include all of the elements that were initially rehearsed.

The 24 missing story elements from the 1832 recital are as follows:

• Concern for personal salvation began at age 12
• Taught that the scriptures contained the word of God
• Realization of apostasy through study of the scriptures
• Grief over hypocrisy of some denominational Christians
• The creation bears testimony of God’s existence
• God was, is, and will be to all eternity
• God is the same forever
• God is no respecter of persons
• God makes laws
• God is omnipotent
• God is omnipresent
• God wants to be worshipped in truth
• Joseph Smith was convicted of his personal sins
• Joseph Smith mourned for the sins of the world
• Cry to God for mercy
• Filled with the Spirit of God
• Savior identified as the Lord of glory
• Directive to obey commandments
• Crucifixion so others could achieve eternal life
• Second Coming in the cloud
• Fulfillment of prophecies
• Lord's anger against the earth’s inhabitants
• Punishment for the ungodly
• Joseph Smith was filled with love for many days

In the 9 November 1835 First Vision account, several story elements do not show up in subsequent accounts

The same type of thing happens with the 9 November 1835 recital of the story. There are several story elements presented that do not show up in subsequent retellings. The later recitals are, therefore, LESS detailed.

The missing 1835 elements are:

• Reference to scripture - "seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened"
• Joseph Smith hears a noise like a person walking toward him
• Joseph Smith springs to his feet and looks around but doesn't see anybody
• Many angels were seen during the vision (this element IS repeated in a recital given 5 days later)

Some details in the 1838 First Vision account do not appear in the 1842 (Wentworth Letter) account

A comparison of the Prophet's 1838 and 1842 recitals yields the same result. The following details from the 1838 recounting do not show up in the 1842—Wentworth Letter—rehearsal:

• An unusual excitement on the subject of religion took place around Manchester, New York
• Contention among denominational leaders
• Large-scale conversions
• Proselytizing of Joseph's family
• Feelings of anxiety
• James 1:5 affected Joseph with great force
• Vision took place on a Spring morning
• Seized by a dark power; fear of destruction
• Pillar of light descended
• Deliverance from the enemy
• The Father introduced the Son
• Creeds are an abomination; corruption of professors
• Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof
• Contempt and persecution for telling the story

Again, it is apparent that the Prophet's later tellings of the First Vision story were LESS detailed than his earlier ones.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 235. ( Index of claims ) PBS documentary The Mormons

Did Joseph Smith revise his account of the First Vision in 1838 to respond to a leadership crisis?

Joseph Smith was telling the same First Vision story in 1835, three years before the leadership crisis

It is claimed that in 1838 Joseph Smith revised his personal history to say that his original call came from God the Father and Jesus Christ rather than an angel. It is also claimed that his motive for doing this was to give himself a stronger leadership role because an authority crisis had recently taken place and large-scale apostasy was the result.

The idea that Joseph Smith modified the First Vision story in 1838 in order to quell a leadership crisis is a convenient mythology crafted by critics who seem to be woefully unfamiliar with the records of the past and were unaware that Joseph told the same story in 1835.

Warren Parrish was the "ringleader" of the Kirtland leadership crisis in 1839, and yet he was also the scribe for the 1835 First Vision account

This argument is a reference to the Kirtland crisis of 1837–38. Warren Parrish was considered by some of the Saints to be the ringleader of the Kirtland crisis. It is, therefore, all the more interesting that it was this same Warren Parrish who acted as scribe in recording a First Vision recital given by the Prophet Joseph Smith on 9 November 1835. When Parrish's 1835 account of the theophany is compared to the 1838 account it becomes glaringly obvious that the story did NOT change over time, as the critics would like everyone to believe.

There is no shift in historical content between the 1835 and 1838 First Vision accounts, since both are followed immediately thereafter by the Book of Mormon angel story

It should also be noted that both the 1835 and 1838 First Vision accounts are followed immediately thereafter by the Book of Mormon angel story. Thus, it is impossible for critics to claim a shift in historical content by the Prophet. Before the Kirtland crisis took place Joseph Smith spoke in the 1835 retelling of events about an 1820 vision of two personages followed by an 1823 visitation by an angel. After the Kirtland crisis took place Joseph Smith said the exact same thing in the 1838 retelling of events.

9 November 1835 – "was about 14 years old"

2 May 1838 – "a little over fourteen years of age"

9 November 1835 – "looking at the different systems [of religion] taught [to] the children of men"

2 May 1838 – "Some crying, ‘Lo here’ and some ‘Lo there’"

9 November 1835 – "being wrought up in my mind, respecting the subject of religion"; "being thus perplexed in mind"

2 May 1838 – "my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness"

9 November 1835 – "I knew not who was right or who was wrong"

2 May 1838 – "it was impossible for a person young as I was and so unacquainted with men and things to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong"

9 November 1835 – "the Lord . . . had said . . . if any man lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not"

2 May 1838 – "I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse which reads, ‘If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him’"

9 November 1835 – "I retired to the silent grove"

2 May 1838 – "I retired to the woods"

9 November 1835 – "[I] bowed down before the Lord"; "I called upon the Lord for the first time"

2 May 1838 – "I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God . . . It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt"

9 November 1835 – "I made a fruitless attempt to pray, my tongue seemed to be swollen in my mouth, so that I could not utter . . . looked around, but saw no person"

2 May 1838 – "I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me and had such astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue . . . the power of some actual being from the unseen world"

9 November 1835 – "a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon my head"

2 May 1838 – "I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me"

9 November 1835 – "a personage appeared . . . another personage soon appeared"

2 May 1838 – "I saw two personages"

9 November 1835 – "he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"

2 May 1838 – "This is my beloved Son"]

Did Joseph Smith lose control of the Church during the 1838 Kirtland apostasy?

The historical record shows that Joseph Smith stayed firmly in charge of Church affairs during the 1838 crisis

Anti-Mormons claim that because of the problems caused by apostates in Kirtland, Ohio Joseph Smith suffered in his role as leader of the restored Church. While it is true that the apostates claimed Joseph Smith to be a fallen prophet, and tried to take over his role, the historical record shows that he stayed firmly in charge of Church affairs. In other words, the anti-Mormon claim that he needed to somehow boost his role as leader by modifying his story to sound more impressive falls flat. Consider the following timeline which leads right up to the time of the recording of the 1838 First Vision account.

• On 7 November 1837 Joseph Smith was "unanimously" sustained by the Far West, Missouri Saints as the presiding officer of the Church. This is the same location where the Prophet had the 1838 First Vision account recorded.
• About 10 December 1837 Joseph Smith returned to Kirtland, Ohio. While the Prophet was away at Far West, Missouri Warren Parrish and his band of "reformers" denounced the Saints in general as heretics and set Joseph Smith "at naught". During this period Parrish was under suspicion for embezzling tens of thousands of dollars from the Kirtland bank - which led to the apostasy of a considerable number of Saints.
• On 22 December 1837 the apostates were threatening to kill a member of the Quorum of the Twelve who was supportive of Joseph Smith
• On 12 January 1838 Joseph Smith and another member of the First Presidency of the Church left Kirtland, Ohio in order to "escape mob violence" which was aimed at them.
• Some of the Kirtland apostates, armed with rifles and pistols, followed the Prophet for 200 miles with the intent of taking his life - he was a firsthand witness to their threats.
• On 10 February 1838 Joseph Smith's authority was recognized in Far West, Missouri while that of the apostates was rejected and they were removed from office "by a united voice."
• On 12-14 March 1838 Joseph Smith was met by several groups and escorts, "with open arms," as he approached Far West, Missouri.
• On 29 March 1838 Joseph Smith wrote a letter to Church leaders in Kirtland, Ohio, mentioning the warm reception he received and says of Far West: "The Saints at this time are in union; and peace and love prevail throughout." He also relates: "Various and many have been the falsehoods written from Kirtland to this place, but [they] have availed nothing. We have no uneasiness about the power of our enemies in this place to do us harm." He spoke of recently receiving a vision from the Lord. The Prophet signed his letter as "President of the Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints."
• On 6 April 1838 the General Conference of the Church was held in Far West, Missouri and Joseph Smith was the presiding officer.
• About 10 April 1838 Joseph Smith signs a letter identifying himself as one of the "Presidents of the whole Church of Latter-day Saints."
• On 28 April 1838 Joseph Smith attended a High Council by invitation and was invited to preside over it.

Clearly, this is not the picture of a man in a leadership crisis who needed to bolster his standing among the Saints by making up some impressive-sounding story. This is the picture of a man who was being targeted by a small band of thugs but who still retained leadership standing among the vast majority of the Saints. The story that he told before the apostate problems of the Kirtland era was the same story he told after the troublemakers were shown the door.

Do contemporary documents shed any light on the possible persecution of the Smith family after Joseph Smith's First Vision?

Contemporary newspaper articles report an episode that likely provides some window into the persecution which the Smiths endured

Milton Backman recounts the events surrounding the death of Alvin, Joseph's elder brother:

After the death of Joseph's brother, Alvin, who died November 19, 1823, someone circulated the rumor that Alvin's body had been "removed from the place of his interment and dissected." In an attempt to ascertain the truth of this report, Joseph Smith, Sr., along with neighbors gathered at the grave, removed the earth, and found the body undisturbed. To correct the fabrication, designed in the opinion of Joseph's father to injure the reputation of the Smith family, Joseph, Sr., placed in the Wayne Sentinel (which appeared on successive Wednesdays from September 30 to November 3, 1824) a public notice reciting his findings that the body was undisturbed.

Richard Bushman noted:

What Joseph said explicitly was that the vision led to trouble, though his youthful sensitivity probably exaggerated the reaction. The talk with the minister, he remembered, brought on ridicule by "all classes of men, both religious and irreligious because I continued to affirm that I had seen a vision." Local people seemed to have discussed his case, even though he said nothing to his parents. Eighteen years later when he wrote his history, the memories of the injustices still rankled. For what ever reason, his father's family suffered "many persecutions and afflictions," he recalled, deepening a previous sense of alienation. William Smith remembered people throwing dirt, stones, and sticks against the Smith house. Later, after Alvin died, it was rumored someone had disturbed his body, and Joseph Sr. published a notice in the paper that the body had been exhumed and found to be untouched. Once someone fired a short at young Joseph for no apparent reason.

This kind of malicious gossip is cruel and requires some motive. The notice that Joseph Smith Sr. placed in the Wayne Sentinel appeared four years after the first vision and one year after the first visit of Moroni to Joseph Smith, the visit in which Joseph was first shown the location of the plates but was not allowed to obtain them. This event is thus three years before Joseph's more-widely-known acquisition of the plates and five years before the publication of the Book of Mormon. If the Smith family could be the subject of such malicious gossip when faced with a tragedy like Alvin's death, without any other known motive for the ill treatment, can we reasonably presume that Joseph's vision had something to do with it? This should be considered in assesments of Joseph's claims to persecution

What did Joseph Smith's mother Lucy Smith say regarding the persecution of the Smith family after the First Vision?

Joseph's mother recalled that Joseph suffered "every kind of opposition and persecution from different orders of religionists

Lucy Mack Smith recalled,

From this time [the First Vision] until the twenty-first of September, 1823 [when he saw the angel Moroni] Joseph continued, as usual, to labour with his father, and nothing during this interval occurred of very great importance—though he suffered, as one would naturally suppose, every kind of opposition and persecution from the different orders of religionists.

What did Joseph Smith's brother William Smith say regarding the persecution of the Smith family after the First Vision?

William Smith said that "We never knew we were bad folks until Joseph told his vision"

William Smith, Joseph's brother remembered:

We were all very much scoffed at and persecuted during all this time, while Joseph was receiving his visions and translating the plates.

It has generally been stated that my father's family were lazy, shiftless and poor; but this was never said by their neighbors, or until after the angel appeared and the story of the golden Bible was told....

It is said that Joseph and the rest of the family were lazy and indolent. We never heard of such a thing until after Joseph told his vision, and not then by our friends. Whenever the neighbors wanted a good days work done they knew where they could get a good hand and they were not particular to take any of the other boys before Joseph either. We cleared sixty acres of the heaviest timber I ever saw. We had a good place, but it required a great deal of labor to make it a good place. We also had on it from twelve to fifteen hundred sugar trees, and to gather the sap and make sugar and molasses from that number of trees was no lazy job. We worked hard to clear our place and the neighbors were a little jealous. If you will figure up how much work it would take to clear sixty acres of heavy timber land, heavier than any here, trees you could not conveniently cut down, you can tell whether we were lazy or not, and Joseph did his share of the work with the rest of the boys.

["]We never knew we were bad folks until Joseph told his vision. We were considered respectable till then, but at once people began to circulate falsehoods and stories in a wonderful way."

With William's accounts, we again see that the persecution was largely verbal, in the form of gossip and slander.

What did Joseph Smith's contemporaries say regarding the persecution of the Smith family after the First Vision?

Thomas H. Taylor said that some people "ducked him in the pond that you see over there, just because he preached what he believed and for nothing else"

Thomas H. Taylor, was asked, ""What did the Smiths do that the people abused them so?" He replied:

They did not do anything. Why! these rascals at one time took Joseph Smith and ducked him in the pond that you see over there, just because he preached what he believed and for nothing else. And if Jesus Christ had been there, they would have done the same to him. Now I don't believe like he did; but every man has a right to his religious opinions, and to advocate his views, too; if people don't like it, let them come out and meet him on the stand, and shew his error. Smith was always ready to exchange views with the best men they had. [Why didn't they like Smith?, asked the interviewer.]

To tell the truth, there was something about him they could not understand; someway he knew more than they did, and it made them mad.

The raw notes for the Taylor interview likewise mention Joseph Smith being "ducked in the creek in Manchester" despite the fact that the Smiths "did nothing" and "nothing has been sustained [a]gainst [Joseph] Smith".

Here too, then, we see an element of physical persecution, though the gossip and slander identified by William and Lucy was likely far more common.

Does Joseph Smith's 1832 account of the First Vision not mention that he was persecuted for telling others about the vision?

The Prophet's 1832 history of the Restoration talks about persecution in very close proximity to the First Vision recital

Joseph Smith's 1832 First Vision account does not explicitly say that he was persecuted for relating his spiritual manifestation to others. Some have claimed that this stands as evidence that the Prophet's story evolved over time—probably to add a sense of drama. However, the Prophet's 1832 history of the Restoration talks about persecution in very close proximity to the First Vision recital. The persecution is situated squarely between the First Vision experience and the angel Moroni visitations. The documentary evidence presented above demonstrates conclusively that Joseph Smith did not see anything wrong with telling the basic elements of his First Vision story and either giving a passing reference to other elements or leaving them out altogether. Regardless, it was still a record of the very same experience that took place at the Smith homestead near Palmyra, New York.

"My father's family have suffered many persecutions and afflictions"

Joseph Smith made some remarks in his 1832 First Vision account that have a marked degree of relevance to the argument being put forward by his critics. In relation to the period of time between the First Vision and the appearance of the Book of Mormon angel he said,

• "I could find none that would believe the heavenly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart"
• "there were many things which transpired that cannot be written"
• "my father's family have suffered many persecutions and afflictions"

Since it is explicitly stated by Joseph Smith that nobody believed his story, it would be unreasonable to assume that all of the responses to it were friendly in nature. In fact, the Prophet says right in this text that before the Book of Mormon angel visited him his family was persecuted and afflicted for some unspecified reason(s). He did not elaborate upon the nature of the "many persecutions" that took place against his family because—as far as this particular document was concerned—he had elected not to write down "many things which transpired."

Documentary evidence from the 1838 First Vision account

The following documentary evidence from the 1838 First Vision account strengthens the argument that the 1832 text is referring to some type of persecution that took place because of Joseph's initial spiritual experience.

• Back "then" (i.e., between 1820 and 1823) Joseph's mind was engaged in "serious reflection" over the notion that he had been the recipient of "the bitterst persecution and reviling" by adherents of religion, simply because he had spoken about his First Vision.
• Persecution over the vision was also heaped upon Joseph Smith by "irreligious" persons.
• His words were treated not only lightly but also with great contempt.
• It was implied that he was a liar.
• He was told that his experience originated with the Devil.
• People became prejudiced against him. They spoke "all manner of evil against [him] falsely". He was "hated".
• The persecution increased over time and even became "severe".
• Some people tried to get Joseph Smith to "deny" his vision.
• The Prophet relates: "I was led to say in my heart, 'Why persecute me for telling the truth?'"

This 1838 description corresponds very well with the "many persecutions and afflictions" that are mentioned in the 1832 account. It also matches closely with the 1832 statements that nobody would believe Joseph's story and he reflected upon this adverse situation in his heart.

The persecution aspect of the 1838 account is rarely mentioned in subsequent accounts

It should be pointed out that even though the 'persecution' theme is very pronounced in the 1838 account it is a piece of the story that was not always mentioned or emphasized in subsequent retelling (both published and verbal).

• It is missing in Orson Pratt's 1840 missionary tract called An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions.
• It is missing in the Prophet's 1842 Wentworth Letter recital.
• It shows up again in David White's 1843 newspaper interview with the Prophet where an interesting insight is provided about the reason for the pronounced negative reaction by some of those who heard the story. The Prophet said, "When I went home and told the people that I had a revelation, and that all the churches were corrupt, they persecuted me, and they have persecuted me ever since."
• Rejection, but no outright persecution, is mentioned in Alexander Neibaur's 1844 diary notes. There Joseph is said to have "told the Methodist priest [about the experience], [but he] said this was not a[n] age for God to reveal Himself in vision[. The priest said that] revelation ha[d] ceased with the New Testament."

This last example is especially significant because it is an obvious reference to the Methodist minister who is spoken of in the 1838 History of the Church account. The 1844 rehearsal of events is less detailed but it is, nevertheless, the same exact story. The 1844 document clearly demonstrates that Joseph Smith did not always include an equal amount of story elements in his recitals of the First Vision. Critics of this manifestation should, therefore, not expect any such thing when they scrutinize the pertinent documents. If an element of the story was not known by one particular audience it cannot be automatically assumed that it was not known by another.

See also:

Did Joseph Smith not talk about persecution in his 1832 account?

⍗

Learn more about claims that Joseph Smith's First Vision is impossible because there is no such thing as visions

Online	Steven C. Harper, "Evaluating Three Arguments Against Joseph Smith's First Vision," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 2/2 (12 October 2012). [17–34] link
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young First Vision

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 245. ( Index of claims ) MormonThink.com website (as of 5 May 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm Wikipedia article "First Vision"–Primary editors: COgden and John Foxe, with additional contributions by multiple editors. ( FAIR's Analysis of this Wikipedia article)

Did Joseph Smith become a member of Emma Hale Smith's Methodist congregation in 1828, eight years after the First Vision?

When the procedures and policy of the Methodist Episcopal Church are examined, it is not possible that Joseph could have joined as related in the story given by one of his critics

Joseph and Hiel Lewis were cousins of Emma Hale Smith; they would have been aged 21 and 11 respectively in 1828, and in 1879 reported:

...while he, Smith, was in Harmony, Pa., translating his book....that he joined the M[ethodist] [Episocpal] church. He presented himself in a very serious and humble manner, and the minister, not suspecting evil, put his name on the class book, the absence of some of the official members, among whom was the undersigned, Joseph Lewis, who, when he learned what was done, took with him Joshua McKune, and had a talk with Smith. They told him plainly that such a character as he was a disgrace to the church, that he could not be a member of the church unless he broke off his sins by repentance, made public confession, renounced his fraudulent and hypocritical practices, and gave some evidence that he intended to reform and conduct himself somewhat nearer like a christian than he had done. They gave him his choice, to go before the class, and publicly ask to have his name stricken from the class book, or stand a disciplinary investigation. He chose the former, and immediately withdrew his name. So his name as a member of the class was on the book only three days.--It was the general opinion that his only object in joining the church was to bolster up his reputation and gain the sympathy and help of christians; that is, putting on the cloak of religion to serve the devil in.

However, the Lewis' account of Joseph's three-day membership leaves him neither the time, nor the searching assessment required to become a member of the Methodists. This scenario simply does not match how Methodists admitted or expelled members. At best, he was probably regarded as "on probation" or (in modern LDS parlance) "an investigator". The means by which the Methodists separated themselves from Joseph are inconsistent with him being a full member; they do, however, match how probationaries were handled, though in Joseph's case he seems to have had more abrupt and preemptory treatment than was recommended.

This, coupled with the late date of the reminiscences, the clearly hostile intent of the witnesses, and multiple reports from both friendly and skeptical sources that claim Joseph never formally joined another religion make the critics' interpretation deeply suspect.

There is a marked absence of any other witnesses of Joseph's supposed membership and involvement

The Lewis witness is late. There is a marked absence of any other witnesses of Joseph's supposed membership and involvement, even though there are many witnesses who could have given such testimony.

For example, Nathaniel Lewis, another family member, was a Methodist minister. In his 1834 affidavit against Joseph, he emphasized his "standing in the Methodist Episcopal Church" which led him to "suppose [Joseph] was careful how he conducted or expressed himself before me." Yet, though anxious to impugn Joseph's character, this Lewis said nothing about membership in (or expulsion) from the Methodists.

Likewise, none of Emma's other family members said anything about a Methodist connection, though they were closest to and most aware of Joseph's actions at this juncture than at any other time. Yet, Isaac Hale, Alva Hale, Levi Lewis, and Sophia Lewis are silent on the matter of Joseph's Methodism.

How quickly could one join the Methodists in the 1830s?

As we examine Osmon Cleander Baker's A guide-book in the administration of the discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, we will discover that the scenario described by Joseph and Hiel Lewis of Joseph Smith's ejection from the Methodists simply does not match how Methodists admitted or expelled members. (This work dates to 1855, but it often invokes Wesley himself, and is a good first approximation of how Methodists saw such matters.)

A six month probationary period was required in order to join the Methodists

The Guide-Book is clear that considerable time needs to elapse before one is formally admitted as a member:

[23] The regularly-constituted pastor is the proper authority to admit suitable persons to the communion of the Church. The preacher in charge, acting at first under the authority of Mr. Wesley, received members into the society, and severed their relations from the Church, according to his own convictions of duty. In 1784 the assistant was restricted from giving tickets to any, until they had been recommended by a leader with whom they had met, at least two months, on trial. In 1789 the term of probation was extended to six months....Hence, [24] since the organization of our Church, none could be received into full communion who had not previously been recommended by a leader; and, since 1840, it has been required that the applicant pass a satisfactory examination before the Church, respecting the correctness of his doctrine and his willingness to observe the rules of the Church....

Joseph's experience would predate the 1840 requirement, but clearly the requirement of at least a six month probationary period was required, and this required a leader to meet with them and be recommended for membership. The Lewis' three days certainly make this impossible.

Orthodox Christians may have the waiting period waived, but this still requires membership in an orthodox denomination, which Joseph Smith did not have

The Guide-Book indicates that orthodox Christians may have the waiting period waived:

6. "Persons in good standing in other orthodox Chruches, who desire to unite with us, may, by giving satisfactory answers to the usual inquiries, be received at once into full fellowship."....

This still requires membership in an orthodox denomination, which Joseph did not have. Further, he clearly could not give the "satisfactory answers" to the types of questions which the Guide-Book recommends, since the Lewis brothers insist that he was unwilling to do so only three days later. Furthermore, Joseph's views were clearly not "orthodox" by Methodist standards.

Those who were not full members of the church were called "probationers," and at least six months was required to end a probationary period

The Guide-Book is again specific about the length of time required to pass this stage, and the searching examination of conduct and belief that Methodist groups required:

[28]...it is a matter of vital importance to test, with deep scrutiny, the moral and Christian character of those who propose to enter her holy communion. No proselyte was admitted to Jewish fellowship without being well proved and instructed. The same care was observed by the early Christian Church. "None in those days," says Lord King, "were hastily advanced to the higher forms of Christianity, but according to their knowledge and merit, gradually [29] arrived thereto."...It is the prerogative of the preacher in charge alone to receive persons on trial. No one whose name is taken by a class-leader can be considered as a member on trial until the preacher recognizes the person as such....

[30] As the minister may not know whether the candidate makes a truthful declaration of his moral state, he is authorized "to admit none on trial except they are well recommended by one you know, or until they have met twice or thrice in class." As they are not supposed, at the time of joining on trial, to be acquainted with our doctrines, usages, and discipline, they are not required, at that time, to subscribe to our articles of religion and general economy; but if they propose to join in full connexion, "they must give satisfactory assurances both of the correctness of their faith and their willingness to observe and keep the rules of the Church."...

The Discipline does not specify the time when the probation shall terminate, but it has [31] fixed its minimum period. "Let none be received into the Church until they are recommended by a leader with whom they have met at least six months."...

Again, at least six months was required to end a probationary period. One could not even be a trial, or probationary member unless they were "well recommended" (which seems unlikely, given the reaction to those who did know about Joseph as soon as they heard) or had attended "twice or thrice in class"--this too seems unlikely given only three days of membership.

An earlier account from a Methodist magazine prior to 1828 also supports this reading. In a letter to the editor from a Methodist missionary in Connecticut, the missionary responds to the accusation by others (usually Calvinists) who claim the Methodists falsify their membership records: they are accused of counting only those who have been added, but subtracting those who had left. Part of the response includes line: ".... though the first six months of their standing is probationary, yet they are not during that time denied any of the privileges of our church" (page 33-34).

The letter writer speaks of a revival in New Haven, where he is based, in 1820. "My list of probationers, commencingt June 25, 1820, to this date [March 16, 1821], is one hundred and forty; between twelve and twenty of these have declined from us, some to the Congregationalists, and some back to the world, and some have removed, and one died in the triumphs of faith. I think we may count about one hundred and twenty since June last." (36-7)

It seems likely, then, that the same procedures would have been in place in Joseph's 1828 encounter with Methodism, which occurred squarely between this 1822 letter and the 1855 manual.

Methodists also regarded baptism as an essential part of becoming a member, and specifically barred probationers who were not baptized from full membership and participation

[32] Nor is it the order of the Church for probationers, who have never been baptized, to partake of the holy sacrament. The initiatory rite should first be administered before the person is admitted to all the distinguishing rites of the new covenant.

Since we have no record that Joseph was baptized into Methodism or any other faith prior to his revelations and founding of a new religious movement, this is another bar to his membership with the Methodists. How did he compress his six-month probation, proper answers to all the questions, searching interview by his fellow parishioners, and his baptism, only to abandon the faith without complaint, all within three days?

The Methodist Church had no jurisdiction over acts committed before the member had joined

The Guide-Book was also clear that (save for immorality in preachers), the Methodist Church had no jurisdiction over acts committed before the member had joined:

[90] Any crime, committed at however remote a period, if it be within the time in which the accused has been a member of the Church, is indictable; but it cannot extend to any period beyond membership....

Thus, nothing that Joseph had said or done prior to his membership could have been grounds for action. Thus, only the events of a scant three days were under the jurisdiction of the Methodists, if he had been accepted as a full member. (The Lewises even admit that nothing Joseph had said or done was cause for suspicion, because those who did not know him saw no cause for concern. It was only those who knew his past who were concerned.)

If, however, he was seen as a probationary or "person on trial," then the church and its leaders and members had every right to assess anything about him and decide if he merited membership.

Those who have not formally joined the Methodists could leave the group relatively easily

The Guide-Book is clear that those who have not formally joined the Methodists can leave the group relatively easily:

[30] A mere probationer enters into no covenant with the Church. Every step he takes is preliminary to this, and either party may, at any time, quietly dissolve the relation between them without rupture or specific Church labour.

The Lewis brothers claim they gave Joseph a choice: (1) repent and change his ways; or (2) remove himself from association with them, by either (a) telling the class publicly that he was doing so; or (b) being subject to a disciplinary investigation. This matches how the Guide-Book recommends that probationers or "person[s] on trial" be handled:

[32] A person on trial cannot be arraigned before the society, or a select number of them, on definite charges and specifications. "If he walk disorderly, he is passed out by the door at which he came in. The pastor, upon the evidence and recommendation required in the Discipline, entered his name as a candidate, or probationer, for membership, and placed him in a class for religious training and improvement; now if his conduct be contrary to the gospel, or, in the language of our rule, if he 'walk disorderly [33] and will not be reproved,' it is the duty of the pastor to discontinue him, to erase his name from the class-book and probationers' list. This is not to be done rashly, or on suspicion, or slight evidence of misconduct. It is made the duty of his leader to report weekly to his pastor 'any that walk disorderly and will not be reproved.' This implies that the leader, on discovering an impropriety in his conduct, first conversed privately with him, and, on finding that he had done wrong, attempted to administer suitable reproof that he might be recovered. Had he received reproof, this had been the end of the matter; but he 'would not be reproved,'--would not submit to reproof,--and the leader therefore reports the case to the pastor. But it is evidently the design that after this first failure on the part of the leader, further efforts should be made by the pastor; for the rule, after providing that such conduct shall be made known to the pastor, adds: 'We will admonish him of the error of his ways. We will bear with him for a season. But, then, if he repent not, he hath no more place among us.' The pastor, on consultation with the leader and others when convenient in country societies, and with the [34] leaders' meeting, where there is one, determines on the proper course, and carries the determination into effect. Here is a just correspondence between rights and duties." - Plat. Meth., p. 87.

In contrast to probationers, full members were required to undergo a disciplinary procedure

The Guide-Book is very clear:

[35] When a Church relation is formed, the member, virtually, promises to observe the rules and usages of the society, and if he violates them, to submit to the discipline of the Church. And hence none can claim a withdrawal from the Church against whom charges have been preferred, or until the Church has had an opportunity to recognise the withdrawal. A solemn covenant cannot be dissolved until the parties are duly notified....

How is this discipline to be handled? The Guide-Book contains extensive rules for managing such trials, and insists that such a trial is the only way to challenge the membership of a full member:

[83] It is a principle clearly recognised by the Discipline of our Church, that no member, in full connexion, can be dropped or expelled by the preacher in charge until the select committee, or the society of which he is a member, declares, in due form, that he is guilty of the violation of some Scriptural or moral principle,, or some requisition of Church covenant....[96] The Discipline requires that an accused member shall be brought before "the society of which he is a member, or a select number of them." In either case it should be understood that only members in full connexion are intended....

The "select committee" was a quasi-judicial body of church members assembled to hear such charges, assess the evidence, and affix punishment if necessary. The Guide-Book emphasizes that this important right had been explicitly defined after Joseph's time (in 1848). For full members, it is clearly seen as a privilege which cannot be abridged:

[83] The restrictive rules guarantee, both to our ministers and members, the privilege of trial and of appeal; and the General Conference has explicitly declared that "it is the right of every member of the Methodist Episcopal Church to remain in said Church, unless guilty of the violation of its rules; and there exists no power in the ministry, either individually or collectively, to deprive any member of said right."—Rec. Gen. Con. [89] 1848, p. 73. The fact that the member is guilty of the violation of the rules of the Church must be formally proved before the body holding original jurisdiction in the case. If the administrator personally knows that the charges are substantially true, it does not authorize him to remove the accused member. The law recognises no member as guilty until the evidence of guilt is duly presented to the proper tribunal, and the verdict is rendered....

Thus, even if the Lewis brothers had personal knowledge of Joseph's guilt, if he had been a full member, they could not have simply told him to leave.

Could Joseph just withdraw as a full member?

The Guide-Book seems to rule this option out, for full members:

[108] If an accused member evades a trial by absenting himself after sufficient notice has been given, and without requesting any one to appear in his behalf, it does not preclude the necessity of a formal trial....

Furthermore, the public removal in front of the congregation seems to be out of harmony with another rule regarding trials for full members:

[110] It is highly improper, ordinarily, to conduct a trial in a public congregation. None should be present except the parties summoned; at least, unless they are members of the Church....

See also:	When did Joseph Smith become 'partial to the Methodist sect'?
	When was Lucy Mack Smith baptized as a Presbyterian?

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

MormonThink.com website (as of 5 May 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm

What did Brigham Young say that leads one to believe that he denied the First Vision?

Brigham stated that "The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven..."

It is claimed that President Brigham Young taught in an 1855 sermon that the Lord did not appear to Joseph Smith and forbid him from joining any of the religious denominations of his day, and that it was an "angel" who delivered this message instead.

See also:

Note that the same critics also claim that Brigham Young never spoke about the First Vision at all

An edited version of the 1855 sermon text—as it is presented by Church critics—reads as follows:

"The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven...But He did send His angel to...Joseph Smith Jun[ior]...and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day."

Brigham actually said "The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven...with aught else than the truth of heaven..."

A complete quotation of the relevant 1855 sermon text reads as follows (bolded words indicate anti-Mormon usage):

the Lord sent forth His angel to reveal the truths of heaven as in times past, even as in ancient days. This should have been hailed as the greatest blessing which could have been bestowed upon any nation, kindred, tongue, or people. It should have been received with hearts of gratitude and gladness, praise and thanksgiving.

But as it was in the days of our Savior, so was it in the advent of this new dispensation. It was not in accordance with the notions, traditions, and pre-conceived ideas of the American people. The messenger did not come to an eminent divine of any of the so-called orthodoxy, he did not adopt their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek[,] the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him.

Brigham actually used several phrases from Joseph's published First Vision account in this sermon

The portion of the second paragraph that critics focus on in their argumentation contains distinct themes found in the official, previously-published history of Joseph Smith. It is, therefore, necessary to evaluate President's Young's remarks in that light. Consider the following comparison of texts -

• BRIGHAM YOUNG (1855 sermon): "informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong."
• JOSEPH SMITH (1842 published First Vision text): "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong."
• BRIGHAM YOUNG (1855 sermon): "they were following the precepts of men."
• JOSEPH SMITH (1842 published First Vision text): "they teach for doctrine the commandments of men."
• BRIGHAM YOUNG (1855 sermon): "instead of the Lord Jesus."
• JOSEPH SMITH (1842 published First Vision text): "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me" [Jesus Christ speaking].

Since President Young was obviously drawing his ideas from the official, published First Vision text it is reasonable to propose that he was referring to a completely different event after the comma that follows the word "Revelator" . . . while still referring to the "He" at the beginning of the sentence. Hence, "He" (the Lord) send His angel (Moroni) to Joseph Smith but "He" also—ON A DIFFERENT OCCASION—told Joseph Smith not to join any of the churches.

It should be noted that this sermon was not primarily about the foundational events of Mormonism, but about the United States government and its treatment of the Saints. President Young's remarks on foundational events were incidental, not central, to his message. It should also be pointed out that President Young did not personally deliver this sermon, but had Thomas Bullock read it to the audience which had assembled in the Salt Lake City tabernacle. Bullock served as a scribe on the Joseph Smith history project between 1845 and 1856. It is likely, therefore, that when Bullock delivered President Young's sermon in 1855 he was aware of the First Vision accounts found within the previously-published Joseph Smith history.

The First Vision story had been published nine times before Brigham gave this sermon

It should also be remembered that long before President Brigham Young's 1855 sermon was delivered in Salt Lake City his subordinates in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had published the First Vision story on nine different occasions: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852). It is doubtful that President Young would have remained ignorant of these publications and their content. In fact, it is known that Elder Lorenzo Snow wrote to President Young on 1 November 1850 and mentioned explicitly that his publication contained accounts of "visions of Joseph" - including the First Vision story.

The charge that President Brigham Young said an angel inaugurated the last dispensation instead of Deity cannot be supported. Evidence suggests that President Young's 1855 sermon is closely paraphrasing distinct First Vision story elements that were publicly available to all of the Saints in 1842.

Is there anything wrong with early Church leaders using the term "angel" to refer to Jesus Christ?

The word translated "messenger" is the Hebrew mal'ak which can also be translated as "an angel"

What about the term "angel"? Is there anything wrong with Brigham Young or others using that term to refer to Jesus Christ? Malachi spoke of the Lord as the "messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in." (Mal.3:1) The word translated "messenger" is the Hebrew mal'ak which can also be translated as "an angel." The Septugint of Isaiah 9:6, traditionally thought by Christians to refer to Christ speaks of the "messenger of great counsel." This term for Jesus was frequently used by early Christians. Eusebius stated that Christ "was the first and only begotten of God; the commander-in-chief of the spiritual and immortal host of heaven; the angel of mighty counsel; the agent of the ineffable purpose of the Father." The Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah (an apocryphal work, thought to have been written before the fourth century states that when Christ descended to earth he "made himself like the angels of the air, that he was like one of them." The Epistula Apostolorum (another important early Christian work, thought to have been written by 2nd Century Christians quotes the resurrected Jesus as saying,"I became like an angel to the angels...I myself was a servant for myself, and in the form of the image of an angel; so will I do after I have gone to my Father." At least the use of the term "angel" in Christianity does not seem unknown.

Joseph Smith said that after his resurrection, Jesus Christ "appeared as an angel to His disciples."

How did Joseph Smith understand the term "angel"? One revelation calls Jesus Christ "the messenger of salvation" (D&C 93꞉8) Another states,"For in the Beginning was the Word, even the Son, who is made flesh, and sent unto us by the will of the Father." (JST John 1:16). The Father sends Jesus because he is the angel of salvation. Joseph Smith himself taught that angels of God are resurrected beings who have bodies of flesh and bone. "Jesus Christ became a ministering spirit (while his body was lying in the supulchre) to the spirits in prison...After His resurrection He appeared as an angel to His disciples." In Mormon theology the term "angel" has a unique doctrinal significance.

Since Joseph Smith frequently taught this doctrine, is it any wonder that those who knew him best (Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Heber C. Kimball, George A. Smith, etc.), would frequently refer to the Lord's visit to Joseph Smith as the visit of an angel (i.e. a resurrected personage of flesh and bone)?

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.

Did Brigham Young confirm or expound on Joseph Smith’s first vision?

Milton V. Backman, "I Have a Did Brigham Young confirm or expound on Joseph Smith’s first vision?," Ensign, Apr. 1992, 59:

President Young’s conviction of the divine calling of Joseph Smith included an unwavering acceptance of Joseph’s testimony regarding the First Vision. In 1842, Joseph Smith published two accounts of his 1820 theophany in the Times and Seasons—one he had written and included earlier in the Wentworth Letter, and the other a more extended history that appeared in serial form. This latter account (the account which appears in the current edition of the Pearl of Great Price) was reprinted in the Deseret News, the Millennial Star, and the first editions of the Pearl of Great Price during the presidency of Brigham Young. That President Young was well acquainted with this history is evident by the fact that he periodically cited the work in his sermons and writings. —(Click here to continue)

When and how often did Brigham Young refer to elements of Joseph Smith's First Vision in his discourses?

It cannot be denied that Brigham Young was aware of the official version of the First Vision as published by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois

It has been claimed that "Brigham Young never once mentioned the First Vision of God the Father and his Son in his 30 years of preaching as President of the Church." Note that the same critics also claim that Brigham Young taught only that an angel came: a strange claim to make while insisting that Brigham never spoke of the First Vision at all.

See also:

Note that the same critics also claim that Brigham Young denied God or Christ appeared in the First Vision

It cannot be denied that Brigham Young was aware of the official version of the First Vision as published by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois. And it is almost beyond comprehension to believe that President Young was not aware of numerous First Vision story recitals (both in print and over the pulpit) by high Church authorities such as Orson Pratt, Lorenzo Snow, John E. Page, George Q. Cannon, Orson Hyde, John Taylor, Franklin D. Richards, and George A. Smith.

First Vision elements and other revelatory claims for Joseph in Brigham Young's addresses

• JS called at fourteen
• JS called as a youth
• Revival or Reformation
• All churches wrong; Don’t join any church
• Two personages
• Moroni and Book of Mormon
• Priesthood restored

Chronological mentions of First Vision and other visitations by Brigham Young

This charge is not historically accurate. It can be plainly seen in the information provided below that Brigham Young was aware of the First Vision story during his tenure as President of the Church and not only shared it with non-Mormons in written form but also spoke to the Saints about it over the pulpit.

1832

• Brigham Young September 1832, declared that he "received the sure testimony, by the spirit of prophecy, that he [Joseph Smith] was all that any man could believe him to be, as a true Prophet."

1835–36

• Around 9 August 1835 Joseph Young (Brigham Young’s brother) was serving as a missionary with Burr Riggs and they were teaching the First Vision story. In the Summer of 1836 Joseph Young and Brigham Young were serving together as missionaries.

1838

• Brigham Young, 22 December 1838:

I left Kirtland in consequence of the fury of the mob … who threatened to destroy me because I would proclaim, publicly and privately, that I knew, by the power of the Holy Ghost, that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of the Most High God.

1841

On the 4th June I started for home, in company with Elders Young and Taylor.—Elder O. Pratt remained in New York to republish the book he had printed in Edinburgh, Scotland, giving a history of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and of which he intended to publish 5,000 copies…. [78] Elder Orson Pratt arrived here this week…

1845

• Brigham Young, June 25, 1845: we received the priesthood from God through Joseph Smith…. The Twelve Apostles who received the priesthood from Joseph

1847

• Brigham Young, D&C 136꞉37 (January 14, 1847): … Joseph Smith, whom I did call upon by mine angels, my ministering servants, and by mine own voice out of the heavens, to bring forth my work.
• Brigham Young, January 17, 1847: Dr. Richards read ‘The Word and Will of the Lord’ [D&C 136] and all present voted unanimously to receive it. I addressed the assembly showing that the Church had been led by revelation just as much since the death of Joseph Smith as before, and that he was as great and good a man, and as great a Prophet as ever lived upon the earth, Jesus excepted. Joseph received his apostleship from Peter and his brethren
• Brigham Young

When Brother Joseph received the priesthood he did not receive all at once but he was a prophet, seer and revelator before he received the fullness of the priesthood and keys of the kingdom. He first received the Aaronic Priesthood and was ordained under the hands of John the Baptist. He then had not power to lay on hands to confirm the church but afterwards he received the Patriarchal or Melchizedek Priesthood from under the hands of Peter, James and John, who were of the Twelve apostles and were the presidency when the other apostles were absent.

1848

• Brigham Young wrote, late December 1848: "Elder Orson Pratt published a series of pamphlets on the first principles, viz., Divine Authority, or the Question, Was Joseph Smith Sent of God…. Kingdom of God parts 1 & 2…. Also reprinted his pamphlet entitled Remarkable Visions 16 pages… All of which were published in Liverpool, England"....

1850

• Brigham Young, June 23, 1850, Bowery: "[sin and darkness] makes it necessary for the Lord to speak from the heavens, send his angels to converse with men, and cause his servants to testify of the things of God"

• On 1 November 1850 Lorenzo Snow wrote a letter to Brigham Young and informed him that he had produced a tract called The Voice of Joseph which included information on "visions of Joseph Smith." This tract talks about the Prophet’s First Vision experience.

1853

• Brigham Young 19 June 1853:

All persons who are acquainted with this kingdom, who knew Joseph Smith from his boyhood, from the time the Lord revealed to him where the plates containing the matter in the Book of Mormon were deposited, from the time the first revelation was given to him, and as far back as he was known, in anywise whatever, as a person professing to have received a visitation from heaven—all must know that as much priestcraft as was then within the circle of the knowledge of Joseph Smith, jun., he had to bear on his back, and to lift from time to time. On the other hand, as his name spread abroad, and the principles of the Gospel began to be more extensively taught, in the same proportion he had more to bear. The Lord began to raise him up, and endow him with wisdom and power that astonished both his friends and his foes.

• Brigham Young 24 July 1853:

the Book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet of the Lord, that an angel from heaven administered to him, that the Latter-day Saints have got the true Gospel, that John the Baptist came to Joseph Smith and committed to him the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood; and that Peter, James, and John also came to him, and gave him the keys of the Melchisedek Priesthood....

1854

• The Lucy Mack Smith autobiography called Biographical Sketches became available in Utah. Since Brigham Young protested vigorously against some of this book’s content he was more than likely aware of the 1838 Church history First Vision material printed within it.
• Brigham Young, March 31, 1854:

….After the administration of baptism, we believe in laying hands upon the candidate for his confirmation as a member of the Church, and for his reception of the Holy Ghost; and we believe that these, and all other ordinances pertaining to salvation, should be administered by persons actually clothed with the priesthood, as again restored to the earth through the ministration of angels to the Prophet JOSEPH SMITH…. Trusting that this reply, though brief, will be satisfactory on the points of your inquiry I remain, respectfully, your obedient servant, BRIGHAM YOUNG,

1855

• Brigham Young, (Feb 18, 1855):

But as it was in the days of our Savior, so was it in the advent of this new dispensation. It was not in accordance with the notions, traditions, and pre-conceived ideas of the American people. The messenger did not come to an eminent divine of any of the so-called orthodoxy, he did not adopt their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek, the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowlege [knowledge] of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him. No sooner was this made known, and published abroad, and people began to listen and obey the heavenly summons, than opposition began to rage, and the people, even in this favored land, began to persecute their neighbors and friends for entertaining religious opinions differing from their own.

• [NOTE: compare the above with this by George Q. Cannon in 1889:

But you may ask, ‘How shall I know concerning this? Shall I expect the Lord Himself to come, or His Son Jesus, or send a holy angel to me?’ In reply, we say, No; do not look for such things. This is not the Lord’s way of dealing with His children. It is true, the Father and the Son and angels visited the Prophet Joseph. This was necessary. He was a chosen instrument to accomplish a great work, and to do this he was visited in this manner, so that through him knowledge that had long been lost might be restored (308b)

1857

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

1858

• On 20 January 1858 apostles Wilford Woodruff and George A. Smith appended a statement to the published Church history stating that "since the death of the Prophet Joseph, the history has been carefully revised under the strict inspection of President Brigham Young, and approved of by him." This history contains the 1838 First Vision account.

1859

• In the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City on 1 September 1859 Brigham Young referred to Joseph Smith’s published 1838 First Vision account. He asked, "[H]ave I yet lived to the state of perfection that I can commune in person with the Father and the Son at my will and pleasure? No . . . . [three sentences later] Joseph Smith in his youth had revelations from God. He saw and understood for himself. Are you acquainted with his life? You can read the history of it. I was acquainted with him during many years. He had heavenly visions; angels administered to him. The vision of his mind was opened to see and understand heavenly things. He revealed the will of the Lord to the people, and yet but few were really acquainted with brother Joseph."

1860

• Brigham Young 3 June 1860

The Lord has led this people from the beginning. From the day that Joseph obtained the plates, and previous to that time, the Lord dictated him. He directed him day by day and hour by hour.

1861

• In the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City on 3 March 1861 Brigham Young said: "The Lord chose Joseph Smith, called upon him at fourteen years of age, gave him visions, and led him along, guided and directed him in his obscurity until he brought forth the plates and translated them, and Martin Harris was prevailed upon to sustain the printing of the Book of Mormon. All this was done in the depths of poverty, obscurity, and weakness."
• Brigham Young 6 April 1861:

The Book of Mormon was translated near where we [BY and HCK] then resided, as we might say, in our own neighbourhood. It was translated about as far from where brother Kimball then lived as it is from here to Little Cottonwood; and where Joseph first discovered the plates was about as far from where I then lived as it is from here to Provo. Here we would have considered the discoverer of those plates and the translator of the Book of Mormon as [p.2] one of our neighbours. We are in the habit here of travelling more frequently and further than we were there. From the time that Joseph had his first revelation, in the neighbourhood where brother Kimball and I then lived, appears but a few days. Since then this people have passed through, experienced, and learned a great deal.

• Brigham Young, April 7, 1861:

We are not able to print a book for want of paper. Now we are prepared to go to work and make our own paper. As I have remarked, we have most excellent machinery; we also have good paper-makers; and what hinders our making the best of paper, and all the paper we want to use? Then we can print, in book form, the History of Joseph Smith, and do it in a respectable manner. Then we can print the Church History for ourselves and for the world, and every book we need.

1864

• On 1 September 1864 Brigham Young signed and dated a copy of the Pearl of Great Price and donated it to Harvard university. This volume contains Joseph Smith’s 1838 First Vision account.
• Brigham Young 4 June 1864:

The Lord had not spoken to the inhabitants of this earth for a long time, until He spoke to Joseph Smith, committed to him the plates on which the Book of Mormon was engraved, and gave him a Urim and Thummim to translate a portion of them, and told him to print the Book of Mormon, which he did, and sent it to the world, according to the word of the Lord….. it was first organized on the 6th of April, 1830. This was a slow business, but at last he organized the Church, for the Lord had revealed to him the Aaronic priesthood upon which the Church was first organized; after that he received the Melchisedec priesthood, when the Church was more fully organized, and a few more believed, and then a few more and a few more.

• Brigham Young 13 November 1864

The first act that Joseph Smith was called to do by the angel of God, was, to get the plates from the hill Cumorah, and then translate them, and he got Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery to write for him. He would read the plates, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim, and they would write.

1866

• Brigham Young 17 June 1866:

He called upon his servant Joseph Smith, jun., when he was but a boy, to lay the foundation of his kingdom for the last time. Why did he call upon Joseph Smith to do it? because he was disposed to do it. Was Joseph Smith the only person on earth who could have done this work? No doubt there were many others who, under the direction of the Lord, could have done that work; but the Lord selected the one that pleased him, and that is sufficient.

1867

• Brigham Young, June 23rd, 1867

When the Lord called upon Joseph he was but a boy—a child, only about fourteen years of age. He was not filled with traditions; his mind was not made up to this, that, or the other. I very well recollect the reformation which took place in the country among the various denominations of Christians—the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and others—when Joseph was a boy. Joseph's mother, one of his brothers, and one, if not two, of his sisters were members of the Presbyterian Church, and on this account the Presbyterians hung to the family with great tenacity. And in the midst of these revivals among the religious bodies, the invitation, "Come and join our church," was often extended to Joseph, but more particularly from the Presbyterians. Joseph was naturally inclined to be religious, and being young, and surrounded with this excitement, no wonder that he became seriously impressed with the necessity of serving the Lord. But as the cry on every hand was, "Lo, here is Christ," and "Lo, there!" Said he, "Lord, teach me, that I may know for myself, who among these are right." And what was the answer? "They are all out of the way; they have gone astray, and there is none that doeth good, no not one." When he found out that none were right, he began to inquire of the Lord what was right, and he learned for himself. Was he aware of what was going to be done? By no means. He did not know what the Lord was going to do with him, although He had informed him that the Christian churches were all wrong, because they had not the Holy Priesthood, and had strayed from the holy commandments of the Lord, precisely as the children of Israel did. …[70] When the Lord called upon His servant Joseph, after leading him along for years until he got the plates, from a portion of which the Book of Mormon was translated…. The Lord sent John to ordain Joseph to the Aaronic Priesthood, and when he commenced to baptize people he sent a greater power—Peter; James, and John, who ordained him to the apostleship, which is the highest office pertaining to the Kingdom of God that any man can possess on the face of the earth, for it holds the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven....

1868

• President B. Young 6 October 1868:

Orson Pratt spoke: some seven years before the Lord entrusted them [the plates] to his care…. The Lord revealed himself to this youth when he was between fourteen and fifteen years of age....

1870

• Brigham Young, Tabernacle, SLC, July 17, 1870:

Is there any harm in believing in the Lord Jesus Christ? I frequently ask the question for my own satisfaction. Is there a doctrine taught in this book (the Bible), that would ruin or injure man, woman or child on the face of the earth? Not one. Is there a doctrine taught by Jesus and his disciples that would not do good to the people morally, physically, socially, religiously or politically? Not one. Did Joseph Smith ever teach a doctrine that would not elevate the soul, feelings, heart and affections of every individual who would embrace it? Not one. Did he ever teach a doctrine that would lead those who embraced it down to wretchedness, woe and misery, that would give them pain for ease, darkness for light, error for truth? No; but just the reverse. He proffered life and salvation—light for darkness and truth for error. He proffered all that was in the Gospel of the Son of God, and proclaimed that very Gospel that John saw the angel flying through the midst of heaven to restore. That angel delivered the keys of this apostleship and ministry to Joseph Smith and his brethren....

1871

• Brigham Young, General Conference, April 8, 1871:

Did Joseph Smith ever arrogate to himself this right? Never, never, never; and if God had not sent a messenger to ordain him to the Aaronic Priesthood and then other messengers to ordain him to the Apostleship, and told him to build up his kingdom on the earth, it would have remained in chaos to this day.

1872

• John Taylor, May 26, 1872 Tabernacle, Ogden Tabernacle

1873

• Brigham Young 18 May 1873:

When Joseph Smith first learned [p.42] from God the principle of baptism for the remission of sins, he undoubtedly thought that he had learned something great and wonderful; so, also, when he received his ordination to the Aaronic Priesthood under the hands of John the Baptist. But he did not fly off at a tangent, and think he had it all, but was willing and anxious to be taught further. After receiving this authority, he baptized his friends. When he organized the Church, he received the higher Priesthood, after the order of Melchisedec, which gave him authority not only to baptize for the remission of sins, but to confirm by the laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost. The Aaronic Priesthood holds power to baptize, but not to lay on hands to confer the Holy Ghost. When Joseph Smith received this higher power, he did not throw away the first, but received additions to it. He learned of and administered the Sacrament, then went to preaching a year or two, and received the High Priesthood, which he imparted to others, and then obtained other communications and powers, until he received the full pattern and authority to build up the kingdom of God, preparatory to the coming of the Son of Man, which also he imparted to others.

• Brigham Young June 29, 1873 Logan Bowery

From the time that Joseph obtained a knowledge of the plates in the hill Cumorah he received little by little, a little at a time. When he first obtained a knowledge of these plates I apprehend that he knew nothing, in comparison, of their contents and the design of the Lord in bringing them forth. But he was instructed little by little until he received the Aaronic priesthood, then the privilege of baptism for the remission of sins, then the Melchizedek Priesthood, then organizing a church, &c.,

• Brigham Young, 10 August 1873, SLC Tabernacle:

The condition of the nations of the earth, politically, socially and religiously, was next dwelt upon, and, in concluding, President Young bore a powerful testimony to the gospel of Christ as revealed in this age of the [564] world, through Joseph Smith, the prophet.

1874

• President Young’s Address; Railroad Celebration.—Opening of the U.S.R.R. to Provo [read by David McKenzie]

JOSEPH SMITH. It is true that the angel, commissioned to restore, in this our day, the fullness of the everlasting Gospel, found Joseph but a youth and comparatively unlearned, he having had but limited opportunities for education in the then wilds of Western New York; but, from that date, until so foully massacred with his brother Hyrum in Carthage, Hancock County, Illinois, on the 27th June, 1844, in the 39th year of his age, he assiduously applied himself to studying the English, German, Hebrew and other languages, and gaining all information of worth from every available source, especially through revelation from Heaven, the fountain of all light and knowledge. (5)

• Brigham Young 21 June 1874:

We have passed from one thing to another, and I may say from one degree of knowledge to another. When Joseph first received the knowledge of the plates that were in the hill Cumorah, he did not then receive the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood, he merely received the knowledge that the plates were there, and that the Lord would bring them forth, and that they contained the history of the aborigines of this country. He received the knowledge that they were once in possession of the Gospel, and from that time he went on, step by step, until he obtained the plates, and the Urim and Thummim, and had power to translate them.[p.240] This did not make him an Apostle, it did not give to him the keys of the kingdom, nor make him an Elder in Israel. He was a Prophet, and had the spirit of prophecy, and had received all this before the Lord ordained him….. He received the Aaronic Priesthood, and then he received the keys of the Melchisedek Priesthood, and organized the Church. He first received the power to baptise, and still did not know that he was to receive any more until the Lord told him there was more for him. Then he received the keys of the Melchisedek Priesthood, and had power to confirm after he had baptized, which he had not before. He would have stood precisely as John the Baptist stood, had not the Lord sent his other messengers, Peter, James and John, to ordain Joseph to the Melchisedek Priesthood. …

1876

• Orson Pratt, October 8, 1876, General Conference:

He spoke of some who had attained to a perfect knowledge. Joseph Smith, when a youth of fourteen years of age, had a knowledge of the existence of God the Father, Jesus Christ his Son, and holy angels, for he not only saw them with his eyes, but heard their voice [BY spoke morning and twice in the afternoon sessions.]

• Brigham Young: Sunday afternoon 17 September 1876 SLC Tabernacle:

Brother Cannon speaks of Christians. We are Christians professedly, according to our religion. People have gathered to themselves certain ideas, and laid them down as systems, calling them religion, all professing to believe and obey the Scriptures. Their religious are peculiar to themselves—our religion is peculiar to God, to angels, and to the righteous of time and eternity. Why are we persecuted because of our religion? Why was Joseph Smith persecuted? Why was he hunted from neighborhood to neighborhood, from city to city, and from State to State, and at last suffered death? Because he received revelations from the Father, from the Son, and was ministered to by holy angels, and published to the world the direct will of the Lord concerning his children on the earth. Again, why was he persecuted? Because he revealed to all mankind a religion so plain and so easily understood, consistent with the Bible, and so true. It is now as it was in the days of the Savior; let people believe and practise these simple, Godlike traits, and it will be as it was in the old world, they will say, if this man be let alone he will come and take away our peace and nation....

• Brigham Young 21 May 1877 Logan:

[144] The priesthood which Peter, James and John held while in the flesh was the highest ever bestowed upon the children of men, and it was conferred upon Joseph and Oliver, and without it they never could have built up the Kingdom. … The Lord sent his messengers, Peter, James and John, to ordain him to the highest authority that could be given…..

1877

• Brigham Young died August 29, 1877.

Brigham Young (1861): "The Lord chose Joseph Smith, called upon him at fourteen years of age, gave him visions"

Brigham Young:

The Lord chose Joseph Smith, called upon him at fourteen years of age, gave him visions, and led him along, guided and directed him in his obscurity until he brought forth the plates and translated them, and Martin Harris was prevailed upon to sustain the printing of the Book of Mormon. All this was done in the depths of poverty, obscurity, and weakness.

⍗

Learn more about claims that Brigham Young denied Joseph Smith's First Vision

Key sources	Daniel C. Peterson, "'Easier than Research, More Inflammatory than Truth'," Proceedings of the 2000 FAIR Conference (August 2000). link
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young First Vision

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Christian Research and Counsel, "Documented History of Joseph Smith's First Vision," full-color pamphlet, 10 pages. [There is a notation within this pamphlet indicating that research and portions of text were garnered from Utah Lighthouse Ministry]

What do critics of Mormonism say about John Taylor and the First Vision?

Critics focus only on one sermon in whichTaylor mentioned "an angel" and ignore the numerous times Taylor referred to the Father and the Son, including another sermon given the same day

Richard Abanes refers to "…the discrepancy between today’s official First Vision and the versions of it told by early Mormons, who taught that the First Vision involved an angel (or angels)." In a footnote to this comment he cites several church leaders, including John Taylor. The only citation Abanes gives for President Taylor is for March 2, 1879, but is incorrectly documented.

Critic Isaiah Bennett has written:

Complications arise when one considers the statements of Smith’s successors as Mormon prophets [including John Taylor]. According to them, Smith had been visited by an angel, from whom he asked advice as to which church to join.

Bennett cites the same March 2, 1879 sermon, and one other.

Jerald and Sandra Tanner have also cited Taylor’s comments of March 2, 1879. They later write that "Many other confusing statements about the first vision were made by Mormon leaders after Joseph Smith’s death." Elsewhere the Tanners have stated that "Before the death of Brigham Young in 1877 the first vision was seldom mentioned in Mormon publications. When Mormon leaders did mention it they usually gave confusing accounts."

This warped perspective has unfortunately spilled over into less overtly anti-Mormon reference works. A past revision of the Wikipedia article on the First Vision states that "The First Vision was not emphasized in sermons by [subsequent leaders such as] John Taylor. This implies that Smith did not stress it strongly during his life, and that many early church leaders had little understanding of its prominence."

These claims are simply false, with reference to the oft-misused John Taylor. Consider the following evidence, from sermons, letters, and writings, which demonstrate Taylor’s complete awareness of that event, many well before the death of Brigham in 1877.

What did John Taylor have to say about Joseph Smith's First Vision?

Taylor talked about the visit of the Father and the Son numerous times

John Taylor became one of the editors of the Times and Seasons newspaper in Nauvoo, Illinois on 3 February 1842. He was serving in this capacity when the Wentworth Letter version of the First Vision was printed on 1 March 1842 and also when the History of the Church version of the First Vision was printed on 1 April 1842. John Taylor became chief editor of the Times and Seasons newspaper on 15 November 1842. There can be no doubt that Elder Taylor knew about the First Vision story as early as 1842.

In 1850, John Taylor was assigned to open France for the missionary activities of the Church. Upon arrival he wrote a letter, which was published in the French and English language paper. In that letter he wrote, in part:

The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was first organized in the Town of Manchester, Ontario County, State of New York, U.S.A., 6th April 1830. Previous to this an holy angel appeared unto a young man about fifteen years of age, a farmer's son, named Joseph Smith, and communicated unto him many things pertaining to the situation of the religious world, the necessity of a correct church organization, and unfolded many events that should transpire in the last days, as spoken of by the Prophets. As near as possible I will give the words as he related them to me. He said that "in the neighborhood in which he resided there was a religious revival, (a thing very common in that country) in which several different denominations were united; that many professed to be converted; among the number, two or three of his father's family. When the revival was over, there was a contention as to which of these various societies the person who was converted should belong. One of his father's family joined one society, and another a different one. His mind was troubled, he saw contention instead of peace, and division instead of union; and when he reflected upon the multifarious creeds and professions there were in existence, he thought it impossible for all to be right, and if God taught one, He did not teach the others, "for God is not the author of confusion." In reading his bible, he was remarkably struck with the passage in James, 1st chapter, 5th verse. 'If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him'. Believing in the word of God, he retired into a grove, and called upon the Lord to give him wisdom in relation to this matter. While he was thus engaged, he was surrounded by a brilliant light, and two glorious personages presented themselves before him, who exactly resembled each other in features, and who gave him information upon the subjects which had previously agitated his mind. He was given [236] to understand that the churches were all of them in error in regard to many things; and he was commanded not to go after them; and he received a promise that the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be unfolded unto him; after which the vision withdrew leaving his mind in a state of calmness and peace".

Elder Taylor continued with his narration, indicating that "some time later" as Joseph prayed another ‘being’ appeared surrounded by light who "declared himself to be an angel of God, sent forth by commandment, to communicate to him that his sins were forgiven…[and] that the great preparatory work for the second coming of the Messiah was speedily to commence." The angel also told him about the plates, and the restoration about to begin. In October of that same year Elder Taylor published a pamphlet containing an expanded version of this letter, translated into French. The pamphlet was reprinted again in 1852.

On 13 August 1857 John Taylor and several members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve placed a copy of the Pearl of Great Price (containing the First Vision story) inside the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple.

On 7 October 1859 John Taylor recited portions of the First Vision story in the Salt Lake City tabernacle. Among the details mentioned was the fact that Joseph Smith believed in the promise found in James 1:5 and went in secret to seek wisdom from God.

In 1876 Elder Taylor spoke at a funeral service, and he stated:

Again, there are other things associated with these matters, all bearing more or less upon the same points. When God selected Joseph Smith to open up the last dispensation, which is called the dispensation [326] of the fullness of times, the Father and the Son appeared to him, arrayed in glory, and the Father, addressing himself to Joseph, at the same time pointing to the Son, said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." As there were great and important events to be introduced into the world associated with the interests of humanity, not only with the people that now are, but with all people that have ever lived upon the face of the earth, and as what is termed the dispensation of the fullness of times was about to be ushered in, Moroni, who held the keys of the unfolding of the Book of Mormon, which is a record of the people who lived upon this American continent, came to Joseph Smith and revealed to him certain things pertaining to the peoples who had lived here and the dealings of God with them, and also in regard to events that are to transpire on this continent.

Later in the same sermon he stated that Joseph had also been visited by Moroni, John the Baptist, and Peter, James and John. Isaiah Bennett makes reference to this sermon, but only to page 329: and the only plausible explanation for that reference is that Taylor makes reference to the angel which appeared to John the Revelator, on the island of Patmos. Otherwise that page tells of the visitation of Moroni and the others. Earlier in the sermon, however, Taylor made clear reference to the Father and the Son appearing, as contained in the above paragraph. Bennet and those who follow his tactics deceive their readers by omitting material which disproves their case.

In General Conference October 1877, President Taylor stated:

The work we are engaged in emanated from God, and what did Joseph Smith know about it until God revealed it? Nothing. What did President Young, or the Twelve, or anybody else, know about it before the heavenly messengers, even God himself, came to break the long, long silence of ages, revealing through his Son, Jesus Christ, and the holy angels, the everlasting Gospel? Nothing at all. We were all alike ignorant until heaven revealed it.

The following month President Taylor stated:

[W]e are told that no man knows the [152] things of God but by the Spirit of God. And if they cannot obtain a knowledge of God only by the Spirit of God, unless they receive that Spirit they must remain ignorant of these principles. And it matters not what the learning, what the intelligence, what the research, the philosophy, or religion of man may be, the things of God cannot be comprehended, except through and by the Spirit and revelations of God. And this can only be obtained through obedience to the principles which God has and shall ordain, sanction and acknowledge. And hence, in these last times, he first communicated a knowledge of himself to Joseph Smith, long ago, when he was quite young. Who in that day knew anything about God? Who had had any revelations from Him, or who knew anything in relation to the principles of life and salvation? If there were any persons I never heard of them, nor read of them, nor never met them. But when the Lord manifested himself to Joseph Smith, presenting to him his Son who was there also, saying, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him;" he then knew that God lived; and he was not dependent upon anybody else for that knowledge. He saw him and heard his voice, and he knew for himself that there was a God, and of this he testified, sealing his testimony with his blood.

President Taylor also defended the First Vision in letters: In 1879 he wrote to a friend

We of all others on the earth ought to be the last to oppress the Lamanites. Through the development of their record, by the ministrations of one of their old prophets, we are indebted for the introduction of the Everlasting Gospel; and of so great importance was this action considered that God Himself, accompanied by the Savior, appeared to Joseph.

It was mentioned above that several of the critics point to a sermon given by John Taylor in Kaysville, Utah, in the afternoon of March 2, 1879, to ‘prove’ that Taylor did not have a clear understanding of the First Vision. However, they fail to notice that President Taylor said earlier the same day, just a few miles away, in Ogden, Utah:

When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith, he had a priesthood conferred upon him which he conferred upon others for the purpose of manifesting the laws of life, the Gospel of the Son of God, by direct authority, that light and truth might be spread forth among all nations.

Clearly President Taylor was not confused regarding what happened early in Joseph Smith’s life.

Six months later he again testified to the visitation of the Father and the Son:

The Lord has taken a great deal of pains to bring us where we are and to give us the information we have. He came himself, accompanied by his Son Jesus, to the Prophet Joseph Smith. He didn't send anybody but came himself, and introducing his Son, said: ‘This is my beloved Son, hear him.’ And he permitted the ancient prophets, apostles and men of God that existed in different ages to come and confer the keys of their several dispensations upon the prophet of the Lord, in order that he should be endowed and imbued with the power and Spirit of God, with the light of revelation and the eternal principles of the everlasting Gospel.

Ten days later he again testified to that transcendent event:

Now, we will come to other events, of later date; events with which we are associated—I refer now to the time that Joseph Smith came among men. What was his position? and how was he situated? I can tell you what he told me about it. He said that he was very ignorant of the ways, designs and purposes of God, and knew nothing about them; he was a youth unacquainted with religious matters or the systems and theories of the day. He went to the Lord, having read James' statement, that "If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." [James 1.5] He believed that statement and went to the Lord and asked him, and the Lord revealed himself to him together with his Son Jesus, and, pointing to the latter, said: ‘This is my beloved Son, hear him.’ He then asked in regard to the various religions with which he was surrounded.

Again, just a few weeks later he stated that

as a commencement the Lord appeared unto Joseph Smith, both the Father and the Son, the Father pointing to the Son said ‘this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him.’ Here, then, was a communication from the heavens made known unto man on the earth, and he at that time came into possession of a fact that no man knew in the world but he, and that is that God lived, for he had seen him, and that his Son Jesus Christ lived, for he also had seen him. What next? Now says the Father, "This is my beloved Son, hear him." The manner, the mode, the why, and the wherefore, he designed to introduce through him were not explained; but he, the Son of God, the Savior of the world, the Redeemer of man, he was the one pointed out to be the guide, the director, the instructor, and the leader in the development of the great principles of that kingdom and that government which he then commenced to institute.

Later, in Hooperville, Utah, he stated:

Hence when the heavens were opened and the Father and Son appeared and revealed unto Joseph the principles of the gospel, and when the holy priesthood was restored and the Church and kingdom of God established upon the earth, there were the greatest blessings bestowed upon this generation which it was possible for man to receive.

Two months later he again spoke of it:

Finally, when all the preparations were made and everything was ready, or the time had fully come, the Father and the Son appeared to the youth Joseph Smith to introduce the great work of the latter days. He who presides over this earth and he who is said to be the maker of all things, the Father, pointing to his well-beloved Son, says, this is my beloved Son, hear him. He did not come himself to regulate and put in order all things, but he presented his Only Begotten Son, the personage who should be, as he is termed in the Scriptures, the Apostle and great High Priest of our profession, who should take the lead in the management and regulation of all matters pertaining to the great dispensation that was about to be ushered in.

Two months later he was in Idaho speaking:

In the commencement of the work, the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith. And when they appeared to him, the Father, pointing to the Son, said, ‘This is My Beloved Son, Hear Him!’ As much as to say, ‘I have not come to teach and instruct you; but I refer you to my Only Begotten, who is the Mediator of the New Covenant, the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world; I refer you to him as your Redeemer, your High Priest and Teacher. Hear him.’ Continuing, he pointed out that Joseph was also visited by Moroni, John the Baptist, and Peter, James, and John.

In 1882 President John Taylor wrote a book on the subject of the mediation and atonement of the Savior, and its role in the life of the Restored Gospel. He included this statement:

…when the Father and the Son appeared together to the Prophet Joseph Smith they were exactly alike in form, in appearance, in glory; and the Father said, pointing to His Son, ‘This is my beloved Son; hear Him.’

That same year the President said in a sermon:

we declare that God himself took part in it, and that Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant, accompanied him, both of whom appeared to Joseph Smith, upon which occasion the Father, pointing to the Son said, ‘This is my beloved Son, hear him.’…. …..[32] After the Lord had spoken to Joseph Smith, and Jesus had manifested himself to him…. [He later refers to the visitation of Moroni, John the Baptist, and Peter, James and John.]

During the October 1882 General Conference three of the General Authorities referred to the appearance of the Father and the Son. President Taylor stated that

A message was announced to us by Joseph Smith, the Prophet, as a revelation from God, wherein he stated that holy angels had appeared to him and revealed the everlasting Gospel as it existed in former ages; and God the Father, and God the Son, both appeared to him; and the Father, pointing, said, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him.

Later that same year he said:

In the first place He has Himself spoken to us from the heavens, as also has His Son Jesus Christ…. [323] Now, it is the rule of God which is desired to be introduced upon the earth, and this is the reason why the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith….It is true that God appeared to Joseph Smith, and that His Son Jesus did…

President Taylor then went on to testify that Joseph Smith claimed that John the Baptist, Peter, James and John, and Moses had also appeared to him.

At the dedication of the Logan Temple in 1884 President Taylor said:

I have heard some remarks in the Temple pertaining to these matters, and also here, and it has been thought, as has been expressed by some, that we ought to look for some peculiar manifestations. The question is, What do we want to see? Some peculiar power, some remarkable manifestations? All these things are very proper in their place; all these things we have a right to look for; but we must only look for such manifestations as are requisite for our circumstances, and as God shall see fit to impart them. Certain manifestations have already occurred. When our Heavenly Father appeared unto Joseph Smith, the Prophet, He pointed to the Savior who was with him, (and who, it is said, is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person) and said: ‘This is my beloved Son, hear Him.’ [Later in the sermon he mentions the appearance of John the Baptist, and Peter, James and John; and Moroni.]

In 1886, shortly before he died, President Taylor wrote a letter to his family, part of which reads:

We are engaged in a great work, and laying the foundation thereof—a work that has been spoken of by all the holy prophets since the word was; namely, the dispensation of the fullness of times, wherein God will gather together all things in one, whether they be things in the earth, or things in the heaven; and for this purpose God revealed Himself, as also the Lord Jesus Christ, unto His servant the Prophet Joseph Smith, when the Father pointed to the Son and said: ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye Him.’

As evidence that President Taylor had been telling the Saints about the First Vision throughout his life a comment made at his funeral would be pertinent; it was said there that

Brother Taylor took the testimony that Joseph gave him, that Jesus delivered unto Joseph, that God bade Joseph to listen to from the lips of His beloved Son, as he bore those tidings to foreign lands…

John Taylor (2 March 1879): "the Father and the Son...came to Joseph Smith" and "the Prophet Joseph asked the angel"

The following two statements were made by John Taylor in different discourses on the same day, 2 March 1879. In one, Taylor talks of Joseph Smith asking "the angel" which church was right, and in the other, Taylor clearly states that "the Father and the Son...came to Joseph Smith." This demonstrates how early Church leaders often used the term "angel" to refer to the personages that appeared in the First Vision, even though they clearly knew that they were the Father and the Son.

"When the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right"

None of them was right, just as it was when the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right.

"When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith"

When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith, he had a priesthood conferred upon him which he conferred upon others for the purpose of manifesting the laws of life...

Notice how one refers to an "angel" and the other refers to "the Father and the Son." Taylor was clearly aware of the details of the First Vision. This also demonstrates how early Church leaders used the term "angel" to represent the personages that Joseph saw, even at the same time that they recognized that these personages were the Father and the Son.

See FAIR Evidence:
John Taylor publicly mentioned Joseph Smith's First Vision over 19 times

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). ??. ( Index of claims ) Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 18 ( Index of claims ) Isaiah Bennett, Inside Mormonism: What Mormons Really Believe (Catholic Answers: 1999), ?. Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) ??. ( Index of claims ) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Case Against Mormonism, 2 vols., (Salt Lake City, 1967), 1:120–128. Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 164.( Index of claims ) Dan Vogel, "The Earliest Mormon Concept of God," in Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, edited by Gary James Bergera, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 17–33. Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 3) Wikipedia article "First Vision"–Primary editors: COgden and John Foxe, with additional contributions by multiple editors. ( FAIR's Analysis of this Wikipedia article)

Don Bradley, "The Original Context of the First Vision Narrative: 1820s or 1830s"

Don Bradley,  Proceedings of the 2013 FAIR Conference, (August 2, 2013)

If Latter-day Saint belief about the First Vision is correct, Joseph’s narrative reports a memory of his early experience. If, on the other hand, Vogel, Palmer, and other skeptical interpreters were to be correct, Joseph’s narrative was created to meet his needs as a church leader in the 1830s, bolstering his authority as prophet.

These two radically different understandings of the First Vision lead us to two radically different predictions about how well Joseph’s First Vision accounts will align with the events of the early 1820s. On the first, the believing, view, Joseph’s narrative should match the 1820s context in some detail. On the second, skeptical, view, his narrative should match the claimed 1820s context poorly or only superficially.

Because these two views lead to such different predictions, we can determine which view is correct by testing those predictions. And this is what we’ll do today.

Click here to view the complete article

Is it possible that as late as the end of the nineteenth century that there was uncertainty among Church officials about the identity of the personages that appeared to Joseph Smith during his First Vision?

A history article printed in 1888 by assistant Church historian Andrew Jenson twice referred to one of the visitors as an "angel"

A history article printed in 1888 by assistant Church historian Andrew Jenson twice referred to one of the visitors as an "angel". Two years later Church leaders revised Jenson's text to clear up the discrepancy but did not provide any notation about the change.

When the light of historical scholarship shines upon this particular charge of the critics, it quickly becomes apparent that this is really a non-issue. By the time that Andrew Jenson had published his anomalous First Vision account in 1888 the Pearl of Great Price rendition of the same story had already been canonized by the Church for eight years. Latter-day Saints had long been familiar with the official version of events that took place in the Sacred Grove and the precise identities of Joseph Smith's celestial visitors.

The publication that anti-Mormon critics are referring to was called The Historical Record and it was printed in Salt Lake City, Utah. Volume 7 of this collection contains the reference that critics utilize to try and cast doubt upon the veracity of the First Vision account.

Since Andrew held no position of authority in the LDS Church when he made his "angel" comments, they cannot be looked upon as having any kind of evidentiary value in regard to what Church leaders believed at the time

Andrew Jenson was not a Church historian ('assistant' or otherwise) in 1888 when he wrote the text in question. A book produced by Jenson himself indicates that "his services were engaged by the First Presidency, and he was blessed and set apart by Apostle Franklin D. Richards [on] April 16, 1891, as ‘an historian’ in the Church." Jenson was not sustained as the Assistant Church Historian until 10 April 1898. Since Andrew held no position of authority in the LDS Church when he made his "angel" comments, they cannot be looked upon as having any kind of evidentiary value in regard to what Church leaders believed at the time.

Church critics neglect to tell their readership that Andrew Jenson is plainly listed as the editor and the publisher of both the initial 1888 text and the revision which they allege was printed in 1890. Furthermore, they fail to make note of the fact that when volumes 5-8 of The Historical Record were advertised for sale in a Utah newspaper in 1889 it was noted that this was a "work which Brother Jenson offers" to the public. There is, therefore, no justification whatever in claiming that the LDS Church was somehow responsible for the content of Andrew Jenson's original 1888 article or the revised text that was issued later.

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 31, 337 nt. 57. ( Index of claims ) Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 17 ( Index of claims ) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Case Against Mormonism, 2 vols., (Salt Lake City, 1967), 1:125.

Is it possible that as late as the end of the nineteenth century that there was uncertainty among Church officials about the identity of the personages that appeared to Joseph Smith during his First Vision?

A history article printed in 1888 by assistant Church historian Andrew Jenson twice referred to one of the visitors as an "angel"

A history article printed in 1888 by assistant Church historian Andrew Jenson twice referred to one of the visitors as an "angel". Two years later Church leaders revised Jenson's text to clear up the discrepancy but did not provide any notation about the change.

When the light of historical scholarship shines upon this particular charge of the critics, it quickly becomes apparent that this is really a non-issue. By the time that Andrew Jenson had published his anomalous First Vision account in 1888 the Pearl of Great Price rendition of the same story had already been canonized by the Church for eight years. Latter-day Saints had long been familiar with the official version of events that took place in the Sacred Grove and the precise identities of Joseph Smith's celestial visitors.

The publication that anti-Mormon critics are referring to was called The Historical Record and it was printed in Salt Lake City, Utah. Volume 7 of this collection contains the reference that critics utilize to try and cast doubt upon the veracity of the First Vision account.

Since Andrew held no position of authority in the LDS Church when he made his "angel" comments, they cannot be looked upon as having any kind of evidentiary value in regard to what Church leaders believed at the time

Andrew Jenson was not a Church historian ('assistant' or otherwise) in 1888 when he wrote the text in question. A book produced by Jenson himself indicates that "his services were engaged by the First Presidency, and he was blessed and set apart by Apostle Franklin D. Richards [on] April 16, 1891, as ‘an historian’ in the Church." Jenson was not sustained as the Assistant Church Historian until 10 April 1898. Since Andrew held no position of authority in the LDS Church when he made his "angel" comments, they cannot be looked upon as having any kind of evidentiary value in regard to what Church leaders believed at the time.

Church critics neglect to tell their readership that Andrew Jenson is plainly listed as the editor and the publisher of both the initial 1888 text and the revision which they allege was printed in 1890. Furthermore, they fail to make note of the fact that when volumes 5-8 of The Historical Record were advertised for sale in a Utah newspaper in 1889 it was noted that this was a "work which Brother Jenson offers" to the public. There is, therefore, no justification whatever in claiming that the LDS Church was somehow responsible for the content of Andrew Jenson's original 1888 article or the revised text that was issued later.

See also:

Is there anything wrong with referring to Jesus as 'an angel'?

Notes

"In the 1832 account, Joseph said that before praying he knew that there was no true or living faith or denomination upon the earth"

Is there a contradiction between First Vision accounts about Joseph knowing all churches were wrong?

Jump to details:

• Question: Did Joseph Smith decide that all churches were wrong before he received the First Vision?
• Question: How could Joseph Smith come to the conclusion that all churches were wrong on his own?