In Mormonism today, the First Vision is described as the single most important event in modern times. It signaled a change in God’s dealings with his children and an ushering in of a new age of religious teachings. The interesting thing however is the First Vision itself was almost completely unknown during the life of Joseph.
No mentions
The earliest published account of the First Vision was in an 1840 missionary pamphlet written by Orson Pratt. The First Vision was then published in America just two years later in the March 1842 edition of the Times and Seasons. After being published, references and mentions of the first vision became quite common. For instance, Joseph started mentioning it during sermons and public events where we have references to it recorded in several personal journals.
We see this in a June 1843 entry by Levi Richard, an August 1843 entry by David Nye White, and a May 1844 entry by Alexander Neibaur. It seems that once the First Vision was first introduced then it quickly started to become a focus among the people because of the direct implications it suggested. The interesting thing about this however, was that many people directly associated with Joseph prior to 1840 and there is almost no mention of anything that could be interpreted as a First Vision like experience today.
There are four main versions of the First Vision. I will not compare them here as I already have done so. The 1838 version of the First Vision is by far the most common and is generally the version used in the church today. This is the version that was published in the Times and Seasons March 15th, 1842, edition and is what people generally associate with as the First Vision experience of Joseph.
In this version, Joseph specifically highlighted the religious excitement of his day as a motivation for praying and then the intense persecution he faced as a result of the vision. He also specifically mentioned informing his family of the vision and them being supportive of him.
Of course, the vision itself is an impossible thing to show either way as it would inherently be a personal experience. However, we can look at the claims themselves and see if there is any evidence to support them individually. The first claim is that Joseph was motivated by a lot of religious excitement in the area. The excitement caused him to want to focus and determine which of the groups was correct. Joseph’s 1838 account reads:
There was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion … Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people
1838 account of the First Vision – Times and Seasons March 15th, 1842
The 1838 account actually describes the revival in great detail, however historically no revival prior to 1820 is recorded as happening in the Palmyra area. Interestingly however, there was a great revival recorded just 8 miles away from the Smith farm in 1824. Wesley P. Walters has done a lot of research into this area and simply concluded that if the 1838 account is taken literally then the First Vision simply couldn’t have happened in 1820 as Joseph claimed. He also analyzed the fundamental differences between the 1838 account and the 1832 account which Joseph personally wrote to show that there are further fundamental issues to account for in the 1838 account.
The next major claim in the 1838 account is that after the vision, Joseph discussed the visitation of God with others and found them to be quite hostile to his claim. Joseph’s 1838 account reads:
I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; … yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution;
1838 account of the First Vision – Times and Seasons March 15th, 1842
In this account Joseph clearly mentions that there was an organized effort against him and his telling of the First Vision experience. However, from historical records there is not a single mention of the First Vision, in a negative connotation, until an article was published referencing it in an 1843 edition of the New York Spectator. Prior to this there were plenty of mentions of the Book of Mormon, however not a single mention of the First Vision experience. This certainly would be strange if the description in the 1838 account is to be taken literally. The individuals against Joseph excited the public, but no one took the time to put it in writing?
The last major claim in the 1838 account is that Joseph spoke to his family about the vision, and they were supportive of his claims. If this is true, then there is not a single recorded mention of it by his family or even friends of the family. This includes personal journals from his father, mother, and even anyone in the area.
Again, if he told anyone of the vision then it seems that it was a closely held secret. His mother, Lucy Mack Smith, did write history from her perspective, however it was published in 1845 and seems to describe events as Joseph told them in Nauvoo. This of course appears to be different from how the events seem to have actually happened.
Oliver’s account
In the early church, Oliver Cowdrey enjoyed a very close personal association with Joseph. He also served as a scribe during the translation of the Book of Mormon and was even called the second elder of the church. Oliver was instrumental in helping get the church established in a number of different ways. During his time in the church, if something happened then Oliver was almost certainly involved.
In an attempt to write an early biography of Joseph, Oliver wrote a series of letters which were published in the Messenger and Advocate which was a newspaper in Kirtland. Each of Oliver’s letter focused on a specific aspect of Joseph’s life and together could be seen as a biography up to that time. In the February 1835 edition of the newspaper, Oliver described Joseph’s First Vision type experience however it is completely different from how we would know it today.
The visit described was from Moroni in Joseph’s bedroom. There was no separate visit from God like we would expect today. Moroni also visited a single time not multiple as Joseph would later claim. Oliver’s letter begins by describing the religious excitement of 1823 which caused Joseph to question his standing with God. This doesn’t align with the known historical revival of 1824, however, is obviously much closer. Oliver’s letter reads:
And it is only necessary for me to say, that while this excitement [of 1823] 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. …
On the evening of the 21st of September, 1823, previous to retiring to rest, our brother’s mind was unusually wrought up on the subject which had so long agitated his mind …
While continuing in prayer for a manifestation in some way that his sins were forgiven; endeavoring to exercise faith in the scriptures, on a sudden a light like that of day, only of a purer and far more glorious appearance and brightness, burst into the room.-Indeed, to use his own description, the first sight was as though the house was filled with consuming and unquenchable fire. …
Letter IV, Oliver Cowdrey, Published in February 1835 Messenger and Advocate
The description of the vision continues very similarly to the description of Moroni’s visit described in the 1838 account. However, the 1838 account does have a lot more details and describes Moroni as visiting three times that evening. Oliver was also clear that Joseph, at that point, had not been visited by God as Joseph would later claim. Oliver described Joseph as wanting to know, in 1823, whether God really existed at all and whether he could be forgiven of his sins. Oliver also described Moroni’s visit as Joseph’s first interaction with a divine being.
Of course, Oliver could have just been mistaken about these details. However, these are a lot of details to be mistaken about. According to Joseph’s 1838 account, Oliver had the date of the visitation correct, but for some reason got almost everything else incorrect? It seems to be far more likely that the First Vision narrative was beginning to take shape and this was just one part of it that was later split into two parts for the 1838 account.
Other visions
In looking at First Vision type encounters with God, they historically seem to be relatively common and almost never have universal distain as Joseph described in his 1838 account. Generally, people have described a visitation from God with a specific message or action to perform. These of course are unverifiable, just as Joseph’s is. Many of these visions also seem to exist only in the person’s mind which is understandable. A visit from God doesn’t necessarily mean a physical one, but it could be an entirely mental vision as well.
However, it is clear from these accounts that if Joseph had a similar visit, then it would not be deemed all that unique or generated extreme animosity as Joseph’s claimed. This is however not to say it would be excepted by everyone. Certainly, some would see it as problematic with their understanding of religion.
There were in fact however a large number of these First Vision type experiences that the people in Palmyra would have been familiar with.
- Catharine Hummer described a visit from God in 1786. She went around the area describing her vision and started developing a following.
- Richard Brothers described a visit in 1794. He founded a new church with himself as an apostle.
- David Brainerd described a visit in 1812 in his autobiography.
- Benjamin Abbott published his account of a vision of God in 1813
- Lorenzo Dow published his account in 1814. He was said to be one of the most prolific American preachers.
- Norris Stearns published his account in 1815.
- Elias Smith published his account in 1816.
- Charles G. Finney published his account in 1821. It is interesting to note that this account shares many parallels with Joseph’s 1838 account.
- Billy Hibbard published his account in 1825.
- John S. Thompson published his account in 1826
- Solomon Chamberlain published his account in 1829. This is interesting because Solomon was baptized by Joseph with John Taylor recording Solomon’s visions in his personal journal.
From this list, it is clear that several people had theophany type experiences prior to Joseph’s description of his. It is interesting also that several of these accounts align with many of the details of Joseph’s 1838 account. The parallels between the accounts are certainly interesting and definitely deserve their own dedicated focus.
This is also not to say that because some described an experience with God that Joseph couldn’t have had a similar experience. Joseph certainly could have. This is just to show that if Joseph did have an experience with God, then there is no reason to believe it would generate religious animosity. This is since many others were claiming almost identical experiences with God during the same time window. Sometimes even in the same general area of New York.
D&C 20
Just four days after the organization of the church on April 10th, 1830, Joseph received D&C 20 which was known as the Articles and Covenants of the church. Essentially, the revelation was a founding document for the church and established Joseph’s authority to start the church, offices in the church, and the manner the church should operate. For the early church, the revelation was essentially everything they needed to establish themselves and offer justification for their existence as God’s church.
However, what is conspicuously absent is any mention of a visitation from God. There is a mention of being ministered to by angels as Oliver wrote about in 1835. However, a mention of the First Vision itself is glaringly absent from the revelation. The founding document for the church would of course be an excellent time to mention a visit from God if it happened. The original language of the revelation itself is also quite a bit different from the text that is used today. The original wording of the revelation reads:
For after it truly was manifested unto the first Elder that he had received a remissio[n] of his sins he was entangled again in the vanities of the world— But after truly repenting God visited him by a holy Angel … and gave unto him power by mea[ns] of which was before prepared, that he should translate a Book … & is confirmed by the ministering of Angels
Articles and Covenants, April 1830, D&C 20
In D&C 20, it is interesting to consider the heavy reliance on the ministering of angels, as Oliver Cowdrey confirmed. This is interesting since it is entirely consistent with the scriptures themselves. In the scriptures we find God working through angels or divine messengers almost exclusively. We can look at just a few examples from the Book of Mormon to see the divine pattern.
And the things which I shall tell you are made known unto me by an angel from God
Mosiah 3:2
As I was journeying to see a very near kindred, behold an angel of the Lord appeared unto me
Alma 10:7
[God] saw that it was expedient that man should know concerning the things whereof he had appointed unto them; therefore he sent angels to converse with them,
Alma 12:28
In the Book of Mormon there are numerous other references to the ministering of angels. It is by the work of angels that God operates. Certainly, this doesn’t mean a personal visit from God is impossible as Ether 3 shows. However, as we will see shortly, God operates fundamentally differently between the Jews who are his covenant people and the rest of the world. It does however appear to be a divine pattern that God operates through angels to accomplish his will.
3 Nephi 15
Jesus while speaking to the Nephites told them something that is so informative, yet I personally never understood it until recently. He mentioned that his mission was to the House of Israel not the Gentiles. We talk about this, however the implications are not fully understood at all.
However, before we can consider that it is helpful to first look at the Canaanite women, as described in Matthew 15, who approached Jesus during his mortal ministry. The women had a daughter that was “vexed with a devil” and she wanted the help of Jesus. After repeatedly trying to get the attention of Jesus he ignored her until finally telling the women that his mission was only to the house of Israel. Jesus specifically told her:
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel
Matthew 15:24
The woman however ignored the rejection which caused Jesus to show her great mercy. Jesus’ words and actions however were very clear. His mission was to the house of Israel, not to the Gentiles personally.
With this in mind, then the words of Jesus to the Nephites will make a lot more sense. In 3 Nephi 15 and 16, Jesus told the Nephites that they were the other sheep that he mentioned to the Jews about in John 10. However, Jesus made a very interesting comment concerning the gentiles and their conversion to the gospel. Jesus told them that the house of Israel would see him while the Gentiles would not. The gentiles would be converted to the gospel through the efforts of the Jews. Jesus said:
And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said:
Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.And [the Jews] understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching. And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost. But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me.
3 Nephi 15:21-24
In speaking to the branch of Israel, Jesus said that the Jews during his physical ministry completely misunderstood his statements. They thought that the “other sheep” were the gentiles, however Christ’s mission was to Israel not the gentiles. Christ said that the house of Israel were the ones to minister to the gentiles not him. Jesus also specially tells the Nephites two very important things. He says that the gentiles will not hear his voice, and they won’t see him. They will only be ministered to by the Holy Ghost.
A natural response to this would be to assert that a large amount of people in the scriptures have seen Christ, and I would agree. However, they were all Jews or before the house of Israel was even established. In the scriptures there is not a single appearance of Christ to someone outside of the tribes of Israel. This is incredibly important to note. It is also important to note that you should be weary of anyone today, among the gentiles, that says they have seen Christ. God still has a specific group of covenant people and regardless of how much they change definitions, the LDS Church is not part of it.
Christ’s mission was to gather the house of Israel personally. The Israelites were then to gather the gentiles. With the times of the gentiles coming to a close then Israel is going to receive the gospel again with the associated power and blessings. Their mission is still to gather the gentiles. Therefore, when God’s end time work commences, then I would certainly look to the Jews for guidance instead of the nearest Christian church which has already failed God. There is a reason the two end time prophets are going to be Jews and not Christians.
D&C 84
The last point to consider is a revelation that Joseph received September 22, 1832, known today as D&C 84. As we have previously discussed, Joseph was quite loose with revelations and even admitted that some of his revelations were not from God. However, if this revelation is from God, then it poses significant problems for the First Vision. The revelation itself says that it is through the priesthood and ordinances that we can see God. Without those things then we can’t see God and live. The text reads:
This greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key [of the] mysteries of the kingdom even the key of the knowledge of God therefore in the ordinences thereof the power of Godliness is manifest and without the ordinences thereof and the authority of the Priesthood the power of Godliness is not manifest unto man in the flesh for without this no man can see the face of God even the father and live.
Revelation, September 22, 1832, D&C 84
If no man can see God without the ordinances and the priesthood, then how did Joseph? If Joseph was able to see God without the ordinances and the priesthood, then why does D&C 84 say they are necessary? This seems like a pretty simple contradiction to me.
Just to be clear, Joseph mentioned that the First Vision happened in the spring of 1820. The exact date of the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood is unknown, however according to the LDS church it happened in 1829. If you accept that the Melchizedek priesthood was restored at the Morley Farm conference then that was on June 3rd, 1831. Both were obviously quite removed from 1820. Therefore, unless Joseph was a time traveler then D&C 84 either is false or not strictly true.
It also is quite unclear as to how having the priesthood or receiving the ordinances elevates anyone to the level of seeing God. Ether 12 is quite clear that it is by the power of faith that we access God. It has nothing to do with a concept that we call priesthood, but with pure and simple faith in God. Moroni, in Ether 12, plainly states:
For it was by faith that Christ showed himself unto our fathers, after he had risen from the dead; and he showed not himself unto them until after they had faith in him … wherefore, he showed not himself until after their faith … And there were many whose faith was so exceedingly strong, even before Christ came, who could not be kept from within the veil
Ether 12:6-19
Quite telling is Moroni’s descriptions of faith in Ether 12 as they don’t list a single instance of priesthood being used for a single thing. Moroni always mentioned faith as the catalyst for unlocking the power of God. This of course is quite problematic if we assume D&C 84 is correct since it mentioned that priesthood is required to unlock a higher level of access to God. However, if Ether 12 is correct instead, then why would Joseph be receiving revelations which are incorrect? Certainly, there are a ton of questions when you don’t automatically accept everything.
Conclusion
As mentioned at the start, it is impossible to really tell whether the First Vision happened or not, as it is inherently a personal experience. We would need to speak directly with Joseph and get his understanding of things. This of course is currently not possible. We can however examine things with an unbiased perspective and look at them objectively. This is quite difficult to do when you have a lot of religious baggage. However, it certainly does become easier the more that you do it.
In addition, the timing of the vision being made public is certainly interesting. Joseph and the church had just weathered the storm of Kirtland, and a significant amount of people no longer felt that Joseph was a prophet or being led by God. Joseph’s prophecies of the Kirtland Safety Society didn’t happen, and he was now excommunicating people that disagreed with him. It certainly seems like a great time to bolster claims to divine guidance by releasing a description of the vision from heaven.
To be fair, it does seem like Joseph had been working on the language for the vision for some time. We have the very vague 1832 account, and then the slightly less vague 1835 account. However, neither of these are close to the description of the 1838 account. It seems that the language had morphed over time and the circumstances permitted.
If we, however, just look at the things that we know, then there are a number of reasons to think that if the First Vision happened, then it was very likely different from what the 1838 account mentions. For instance:
- There were no verified public mentions prior to 1840.
- The religious excitement, that motivated his vision, was at least 4 years after Joseph said he had his vision.
- There is not a single mention of anyone knowing about the vision, or being hostile to it as Joseph claimed.
- There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Joseph mentioned the vision to his family, friends, or anyone in the area at all.
- In 1835, Oliver, a very close associate to Joseph and the church, described a single visit from an angel. There was no mention of a visit from God in the woods like Joseph later claimed.
- Numerous other people shared their ‘visions’ which sometimes had very strong parallels with Joseph’s. These accounts were sometimes regarded with curiosity however they certainly weren’t met with universal distain as Joseph claimed his was.
- In the 1830 founding document for the church, Joseph lists the ministering of angels as the justification for the church. There was no mention of God’s appearance which would have been an excellent time to discuss this if it happened.
- Jesus himself said that his ministry was to the house of Israel. He would not manifest himself to the gentiles. They would get the Holy Ghost instead of personal visits.
- Joseph paradoxically received D&C 84 which states that he would have needed the priesthood and ordinances to survive his visit with God. He clearly wouldn’t have had them, so this section is entirely unclear.
- In the Book of Mormon, faith is always used as a justification for our relationship with God. It is never about priesthood, solely about faith.
It is entirely possible, and maybe likely, that Joseph had some kind of deeply personal religious experience. I have had sacred experiences myself and know what it can be like. I marvel at the love and mercy of God constantly.
If we are not careful though, these experiences can take a life of their own and become something they are not. We can then convince ourselves, with perfectly good intentions, that things are different from what we remember. After some time, the good intentions become irrelevant because we now believe the altered version of reality is the actual truth. This may seem absurd to some, however it is in fact far more common than most would realize. There are actually even entire branches of psychology focusing on this topic and the many other mental paradoxes of the human mind.
Joseph may have had his First Vision experience with God, or he may not have. This realization is completely up to us individually. The truth of that doesn’t however change our personal relationship with God. Each of us can have a deeply personal and spiritually life altering relationship with God. God is always listening, always available, and always ready. I can personally testify that God is always one humble prayer away from you at all times.
