If Latter-day Saint missionaries have
ever chatted with you about our faith,
they've probably told you about the
Prophet Joseph Smith and the vision he
had of God the Father and Jesus Christ
in the spring of 1820. We refer to this
experience as Joseph Smith's first
vision and you can read what Joseph
Smith said about it in our scriptures.
But this recollection of the vision is
not the only one. There are basically
four first vision accounts that Joseph
either wrote himself or that were
recorded by a scribe but here's the
catch: while the gist of each record is
essentially the same, there is some
variation when it comes to the details
and to some believers and non-believers,
that's a little concerning. If Joseph is
telling the truth, shouldn't every record
of his first vision be the same? Well,
let's take a look.
I think the non Latter-day Saint author
Steven Prothero said it best:
"Critics of Mormonism have delighted in
the discrepancies between the canonical
account and earlier renditions... Such
complaints, however, are much ado about
relatively nothing. Any good lawyer or
historian would expect to find
contradictions or competing narratives
written down years apart and decades
after the event. And despite the
contradictions, key elements abide." The
first record we have of the first vision
was written by Joseph Smith and
Frederick G Williams, probably in the
summer of 1832, which would be like 12
years after the event actually happened.
Now this leads me to an important point
about Joseph Smith. He was not a fan of
writing. He called it a little narrow
prison, his own wife said he wasn't good
at it, even most of Joseph Smith's
personal journal was written down by a
scribe. Anyway, the 1832 version is short.
Frederick wrote that Joseph was 16 at
the time, a pillar of fire or light rests
upon him, Joseph is filled with the
Spirit of God and wrote, "The Lord opened
the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord."
The Lord forgives him of his sins and
says the world has strayed from the
gospel. Next, we have the 1835 account. Now
this is an interesting one. A guy who
introduces himself as Joshua the Jewish
minister meets with Joseph and Joseph
tells him about his vision. Meanwhile,
Joseph's scribe Warren Parish is writing
everything down. In this retelling, Joseph
says he's about 14 years old at the time
of the vision. He talks about an
encounter with evil he had just before
the vision. There's the pillar of light,
two personages appeared to him, once
again his sins are forgiven he's told
that Jesus is the Christ and he sees
many angels in this vision. Next we have
the 1838 version. This is the one
canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, it
was written for a general audience for
the purpose of being published. He gives
more detail in this account than any
others. He talks about the encounter with
evil, the pillar of light, God the Father
and Jesus Christ, his sins are forgiven,
and he's told the world has strayed from
the gospel. But no mention of seeing any
other angels in his vision. The last
version is from an 1842 letter to a
newspaper editor named
John Wentworth. we're not sure if Joseph
actually wrote this account but in any
case, he signed off on it. We also know
that this account borrows a lot of
language used by an apostle named Orson
Pratt in a pamphlet published about
Joseph Smith in 1840 in Scotland. So it's
not wholly an original retelling but in
this version, he once again sees two
personages surrounded by brilliant light,
he's told not to join any church, and
that the fullness of the gospel would
soon be revealed to him. He omits his
encounter with evil here, doesn't talk
about other angels or his sins being
forgiven. If you want to read any of
these different accounts check out the
links in the description. The church has
published all of them. Keep in mind,
though, that there's a difference between
contradictions and omissions. For example,
according to the 1832 account ,Joseph was
15 or 16 years old. In other accounts,
he's 14. Obviously yes, that's a
contradiction. He can't be 14 and 16 at
the same time. Somebody is obviously
mistaken here but omissions are
different. Just because Joseph talks
about seeing angels in one account but
doesn't mention them in another doesn't
mean they weren't there, it just means he
didn't talk about them in the short 1832
account. This is up for debate but it
appears Joseph only talks about seeing
one personage, Jesus Christ. In the other
accounts, he talks about two personages,
God the Father and Jesus Christ, but just
because he doesn't mention God the
Father in the 1832 account doesn't mean
God the Father wasn't there. And
considering God the Father's minimal
role in even the most detailed account,
I'm not bothered Joseph doesn't mention
him in the short 1832 account. In the
1832 account, Joseph is worried about his
sins. In the 1842 account he's worried
about which church he's going to join. So
which is it? Well, the 1835 account
harmonizes both of these motivations. In
summary ,antagonists of Joseph Smith
believed these differences are evidence
that he just made the whole thing up and
you're certainly free to believe that if
you wish. Personally I agree with
Professor Prothero, it's much ado about
nothing. I think this is just a case of a
guy telling a multifaceted and deeply
personal story to different people for
different purposes in different contexts
and in different decades. Interestingly,
as kind of a brief aside,
we see the same kind of differences in
the multiple accounts of Paul's vision
of the Savior on the road to Damascus. As
contexts change, Paul presents his story
slightly differently and that's fine,
as Prothero said, it's to be expected. Now
if you want to dive deeper into Paul's
accounts, I'll leave a link in the
description so you can do that but the
point is if you don't have a problem
with Paul, you shouldn't have a problem
with Joseph. Check out the links in the
description, check out our website and
have a great day.
