🚩 Problems¶

Estimated time to read: 16 minutes

This page of notes will make a lot more sense if you've read my notes on the First Vision generally. There it outlines four accounts of the event and describes some discrepancies. Here, we'll examine those problems in greater depth.

To be clear, there are more than four accounts, but these four are the ones described in both the LDS church site's gospel topics essay and JSPP's plaintext presentation on the differing accounts. Go on and read through that essay if you'd like to compare these accounts with a more charitable outlook. JSPP's document there simply shows them in modernized English, making them more palatable with things like sentence structure. On another page of notes I've got an examination of eight different "official" accounts. Two would be enough for me to call problematic.

At the risk of belaboring a point too much, the first recorded account was twelve years after the fact. I keep bringing this up because this is not a small problem. Instead, it is what we in the industry call "a big problem." No documentary evidence is to be found prior to 1832 that anyone had even heard Joseph talk about this. No documentary evidence demonstrates that Joseph had preached or shared this message until 1840. And, again, this earliest account wasn't the first printed and distributed account—I've seen claims that this was either in 1840 or 1842. You know, ten to twelve years after the church was founded.

Memory¶

We can try to explain away the discrepancies by observing that memory falters over time. After all, I think that you and I can agree that memory does not get better with time. Unless, of course, you're in charge of writing an apologetic essay for the LDS church, then details changing over time proves that they're true. I am not kidding, that is what their essay describes.

What role should memory play in determining the accuracy of First Vision accounts? I would think that the version recorded closest to the date of the event would be least tarnished by entropy. I would also think that the version recorded in Joseph's own handwriting would make it non-repudiable, and yet it's the most dramatically different outlier. We can't blame scribes for misquoting Joseph if he wrote down his own experience with his own hands. Why, then, have we disregarded these factors in deciding which version is canon? The church settled on the account recorded eighteen years after the event, ignoring the one that the prophet wrote by his own hand.

I really don't think that "i forgor 💀" is a good explanation for omitting the presence of God. Adding that critical detail years later makes it sounds like the story is fabricated. In fact, I will argue that the (hypothetical) memory of God Himself appearing to me after grappling with supernatural Satanic bindings, and then hearing God answer the questions I had been ruminating over for years would be an event that you don't just forget.

If we can agree that memory degrades over time, then Joseph's memory twelve to eighteen years after the event makes the later recollections less reliable, and that makes the earliest account of the experience the most reliable. If the earliest account is the most reliable, then it has no bearing on the formation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. All that meaningfully happened in the 1832 account is Joseph was forgiven of sins. That's it. Go re-read it again and tell me if I missed some detail.

Age¶

You'll likely notice that the comparison of Age has only minor variation. I'm not trying to require that Joseph be able to describe down to the day precisely how old he was, but please recognize that despite the tremendous weight of the moment when divine figures appeared to Joseph, in no account does he narrow down when this happens. The closest we get is "spring of 1820." We don't get a specific month to point to. Just a season.

The absence of a definitive date for the First Vision is not the problem here. The problem is that Joseph can't consistently tell us anything specific about what would be among the most monumental events in human history. If I discover a specific date, that wouldn't make things more palatable—the problem is that if this event mattered to him, Joseph would recollect vivid details about the day when the entirety of his worldview changed because fucking God Himself showed up to advise the prophet that no other church is true, which means that the eternal salvation of every human alive in that moment is in jeopardy, and it's up to this teenaged farmboy to restore the gospel as Christ Himself taught it, but he can't even remember when that happened. Some time in the spring when he was "about fourteen" is the best we get.

In some accounts, Joseph will say he's "in his fifteenth year" or some variation. I don't think that phrasing lends to discrepancy. To us in the 21st century, it sounds odd, but to be "fourteen years old" suggests fourteen birthdays to have elapsed. We normally count age from 0, so to speak; we've had zero birthdays in our first year of life, so being in his sixteenth year would put him at fifteen years old.

Sounds funny, but I don't see it as a problem.

Joseph can point to specific dates for other milestone events (Aaronic priesthood restoration, church founding, Kirtland temple dedication, Nauvoo Expositor being destroyed, re-sealing dates for extramarital wives, sections in the Doctrine & Covenants) but, wouldn't you know it, the one event that would render all others worthless if it lost credibility? No idea when it happened. Spring sometime, he was like 14 or something, who knows.

I can tell you the specific dates of some key events in my life, many of which revolve around the LDS church: my baptism date, the day I went to get temple endowments, the day I went to the Missionary Training Center in Provo, the day I got married in the Salt Lake City temple, and the day I started my career job after graduating university. Each of those dates are important to me. None of those events are as consequential as God appearing to tell me that every variety of Christianity is wrong, and how much that pisses Him off (as shown in the 1832 account.)

Did God appear to you or not, Joseph? Did you forget what God said to you eighteen years later? You didn't write it down the day of? Do we not recognize the significance of God appearing—not a pastor, not a warm-fuzzy-feeling spirit, not an angel in a dream—God the Father appeared, and you didn't write down what He said to you? It'd sure look bad if you had to tell people about this twenty two years after the fact and have to just shrug your shoulders and say "yeah, God appeared, said you were wrong, and maybe He'd tell me the truth later idk lol"

The reason why fussing over how old Joseph was is two-fold: he should be able to remember how old he was in a formative memory, and he should be able to identify the date of something as monumental as Elohim showing up for tea. If Joseph can't tell you when it happened, then it must not have been that formative, monumental, or important. And if this of all things wasn't important enough to remember, then I'm going to assert that it didn't happen. And if it didn't happen... well, President Hinckley himself presented the duality that "then this work is a fraud."

Personages¶

Who are these personages?

In 1832, Joseph "saw the Lord." The personage does say He is "the Lord of glory" and was crucified. Joseph seemed to hold a trinitarian view at this point, so that title could be either Jehovah or Elohim to us. Unclear to me which one.

In 1835, Joseph "called on the Lord in mighty prayer." Two personages appear. One forgives Joseph's sins, and the same one testifies of Jesus. I am left to wonder if this means that Jesus testified of Jesus, or if Elohim Himself testified of His son to Joseph, if the silent personage was Jesus and the one speaking was... someone else, or if Jesus was present at all. They're only identified as identical personages. How insightful is this account?

In 1838, I think it's safe to conclude that it's God the Father and Jesus Christ appearing. It isn't explicit, but I don't see a lot of room for alternative interpretation in this account.

In 1842, Joseph "began to call upon the Lord" and "saw two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other." They said to not join a church. No hints or clues as to who they are.

How many were there?

If you, reader, if you saw God the Father and Jesus Christ both physically present in front of you, do you think that you would think back on the event and mistake them for:

Just Jesus
An angelic visitor (singular)
Multiple angels

This is not a detail you misremember. If you fucking saw God then you don't fumble that memory. You weren't counting how many fast-food workers were assembling a hamburger. You weren't trying to recall how many other passengers were on the bus. You were alone in the woods with an otherworldly pillar of light, and saw how many personages? One? Two plus "many angels"? Actually just two? If your recollection on seeing God falters, then maybe you didn't actually see God.

Intent¶

In 1832, Joseph wrote that before he prayed he already knew that there was no true living faith or denomination as established by Jesus in the New Testament. Instead, the explicitly stated purpose in praying was to seek forgiveness. Nothing to do with James 1:5. Joseph wasn’t even asking about which church to join—he had already concluded that they were wrong.

… by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament.

That isn't something you misremember. You're not going to change your reasons for prayer from "I know the answer, though I'll pray for forgiveness" to "I don't know the answer, so I'll pray to find out."

That is not a small discrepancy.

In 1838, the canonized account presents a very different intent:

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join"..."(for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)

Six years after the prior telling, Joseph's reason for praying to God changes completely. Not only does the first account mention none of this, it describes the opposite. They can’t both be right. They’re in direct contradiction to each other. Get your story straight, Joseph.

Think of it this way: assuming you, reader, are or were an actively practicing member of the LDS faith, think back to the time when you gained your spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Was it in your room? Chapel? Temple grounds? Did you follow Moroni's promise as directed by the missionaries? Did you "ask God with real intent?" Did you get the warm-fuzzy feeling?

You don't have to tell me any level of detail for this experience—it is your own to share or protect, but think on that recollection for context or surrounding information. Don't feel pressured to tell me anything that you don't want to tell me.

... Are you really sure you were praying to know if the Book of Mormon was true? Are you sure you weren't just praying for forgiveness, and then felt that the book was true? Hadn't you actually concluded that there was no "true" religious texts, so you were asking God what to do?

That's the kind of mental gymnastics I'm seeing in Joseph's experience. His intention behind going into the woods to pray has such variance for an unforgettable theophany that I truly don't feel convinced that this holds up under scrutiny.

Trinitarianism¶

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, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space—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, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image[.]

— Lecture Fifth, Lectures on Faith Section V, paragraph 2, page 53; Doctrine and Covenants, 1835, The Joseph Smith Papers

Boy, for someone who definitely saw God in a physical manifestation fifteen years prior, Joseph's foundational theological documents sure don't seem to know if God has a body or if He is "a personage of spirit." It'd be pretty awkward if this understanding of God as being intangible persisted into printing the Book of Mormon. That might cast some doubt on the legitimacy of Joseph's theophany or of his translated work of scripture, or whether God is eternal & unchanging or not. If only God had called a prophet who could clarify this for us 🤔

The above quote is found in a publication of the Book of Commandments containing the Lectures on Faith, where Joseph Smith and his other contemporaries in church leadership establish foundational doctrine and theology. Not only does it identify God as "a personage of spirit," but this would be a perfect opportunity to posit that our church's founding prophet literally saw God and Jesus physically manifested. Is that in there?

Nope. Doesn't even mention in passing that Joseph had anything like a First Vision. Would be a prime opportunity to even demonstrate the prophet's experience in 1820 of seeking mercy and receiving forgiveness, and maybe something about truth. Would also be a good time to demonstrate that God has a physical body and is actively participating in ensuring we have a shot at salvation by physically appearing to call a prophet.

Result¶

If we set aside the discrepancy in when this event happened, why it happened, who was present, or whether it can be reliably told, we still really do need to examine what the result was. What happened, if anything? A heavenly messenger appeared to Joseph. What did they say?

Whether personally or through some intermediary, God answers Joseph's question. Some permutation of the following interactions happened, then:

Year	Query	Reply
1832	I'm bummed out about sins. Show me some mercy?	👌 sure thing, your sins are forgiven. bye
1835	I want to make sure I join the right church. Which is right?	Your sins are forgiven. Jesus is the son of God, btw
1838	Not sure if any of the churches are right? What should I do?	Don't join one. Also don't write down anything else that I tell you.
1842	Religion seems important, but is confusing. What should I do?	Don't join one. I'll tell you later what to do.

I'll be real, I don't know which of those responses I find more dissatisfying. Why would God answer Joseph's specific question of "which church is right" with "I'll tell you later"? That's heavily paraphrased, of course, but God and Joseph are literally in physical proximity, face to face—one of them is eternal and omniscient, and the other is asking for advice. If God answered your question that way, how would you react? "Well, golly gee, if only I had someone all-knowing with infinite wisdom physically manifest Himself before me, an event with remarkably few recorded instances throughout all of Earth's existence, who was capable of providing an answer for which church to join. Oh wait, I have literally the creator of all of fathomable reality right in front of me." What the hell, God?

Publications¶

No records pertaining to the founding of the LDS church mention that one time Brother Joseph saw God, and God telling him that other churches were wrong and to found a new one to "restore" the original. In fact, the opposite is shown; demonstrated above, the early LDS church leadership under Joseph's guidance stuck with trinitarianism, and that God is "a personage of spirit."

Outside the context of a church being founded, the 10 year gap between 1820 and 1830 has no indication that it ever happened. No contemporary periodicals in that ten year span mention Joseph Smith. Actually, they do, but they're talking about things like Joseph defrauding people rather than seeing God's physical body, but that's for a different page of notes. None of the publications in that decade, and no journal nor correspondence from that time mentions Joseph Smith's First Vision. ... There are extant records of "first visions" from other people, though. We'll get to it.

The first periodical to be published by the Church was The Evening and Morning Star, (1, 2, 3, 4) but to my knowledge it never tells the story of the First Vision. Nor does the Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate, (1, 2, 3) printed in Kirtland. In this newspaper Oliver Cowdery, who was second only to Joseph Smith in the early organization of the Church, published letters concerning the origin of the Church. These letters were written and published with the approval of Joseph Smith, but again, they contained no mention of any vision.

The first printing that I'm aware of for the First Vision was by Orson Pratt in 1840, in which neither personage is identified at Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ.

Must not have been all that important, then.

... If it wasn't important, then did it happen?

Find related reading material on the main page for the first vision.