What's the earliest recorded incident of...

[_jon]

So we can get to an account as early as 1835, which indicates that Joseph recounted seeing two personages, whom he doesn't identify, and many angels.

Is this the first account of the 1820 'vision' that indicates Joseph 'saw' more than one individual?

What happened to the 'many angels' in the canonised version?

The number of accounts and the differences between them seem to reduce credibility. They also get more embellished with time.

Was anything significant happening in the late 1830's that meant Joseph would need to add credibility to himself?

[_Buffalo]

Whelp... someone got pwned.

And here he is ^

[_Nevo]

The number of accounts and the differences between them seem to reduce credibility.

The differences between the accounts suggest to me that Joseph was remembering something that actually happened to him. Memory (at least, long-term memory) is always reconstructive. We can question specific details but there is no good reason to doubt that he experienced a vision of God as a teenager.

They also get more embellished with time.

So that's why "many angels" are mentioned in the 1835 account, but not in the 1838 account. I see.

Was anything significant happening in the late 1830's that meant Joseph would need to add credibility to himself?

If Joseph Smith needed to "add credibility to himself" in the late 1830s, then why did he wait until 1842 to publish the account?

[_jon]

Nevo, if you reread my post you will notice I am asking questions.

The point is that they do become vastly more embellished with details over time.
Compare Joseph's original recounting of his vision with the one in the Pearl of Great Price.

I think the statement that there is no doubt that Joseph had a vision - as a blanket to say that the actual details don't matter that much (I've made an assumption that that was your point, if I'm off base I apologise) is disingenuous. There is a significant difference to Joseph having a vision to Joseph seeing and conversing directly with God and Christ.

As I understand it (feel free to provide accounts that disprove this) but in the late 1830's Joseph was under pressure. Or rather his leadership was under pressure. Prior to this period, the first vision was of no consequence within Mormonism - it wasn't talked about, it wasn't discussed, there is absolutely no evidence that it was an important event. It 'became' important' in the late 1830's for some reason - I believe that reason is that Joseph needed his credibility enhanced.

[_honorentheos]

Jon,

In addition to the 1835 account of the first vision, the Lectures on Faith describe God the Father and Jesus Christ as distinct, separate personages, as you can read here: Lecture Fifth

The Lectures' preface gives us the date as well as the authority with which it was presented to the church. I quote it below in full, because authorship of the Lectures is a debated issue:

To the members of the church of the Latter Day Saints-

DEAR BRETHREN:

We deem it to be unnecessary to entertain you with a lengthy preface to the following volume, but merely to say, that it contains in short, the leading items of the religion which we have professed to believe.

The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work.

The second part contains items or principles for the regulation of the church, as taken from the revelations which have been given since its organization, as well as from former ones.

There may be an aversion in the minds of some against receiving any thing purporting to be articles of religious faith, in consequence of there being so many now extant; but if men believe a system, and profess that it was given by inspiration, certainly, the more intelligibly they can present it, the better. It does not make a principle untrue to print it, neither does it make it true not to print it.

The church viewing this subject to be of importance, appointed, through their servants and delegates the High Council, your servants to select and compile this work. Several reasons might be adduced in favor of this move of the Council, but we only add a few words. They knew that the church was evil spoken of in many places--its faith and belief misrepresented, and the way of truth thus subverted. By some it was represented as disbelieving the Bible, by others as being an enemy to all good order and uprightness, and by others as being injurious to the peace of all governments civil and political.

We have, therefore, endeavored to present, though in few words, our belief, and when we say this, humbly trust, the faith and principles of this society as a body.

We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that we are to be called to answer to every principle advanced, in that day when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed, and the reward of every man's labor be given him.

With sentiments of esteem and sincere respect, we subscribe ourselves your brethren in the bonds of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

JOSEPH SMITH jr.
OLIVER COWDERY.
SIDNEY RIGDON.
F.G. WILLIAMS.

Kirtland, Ohio, February 17, 1835.

What makes it of interest is the language it uses in lecture fifth to describe the Godhead. In particular, this:

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...

[_honorentheos]

As I understand it (feel free to provide accounts that disprove this) but in the late 1830's Joseph was under pressure. Or rather his leadership was under pressure. Prior to this period, the first vision was of no consequence within Mormonism - it wasn't talked about, it wasn't discussed, there is absolutely no evidence that it was an important event. It 'became' important' in the late 1830's for some reason - I believe that reason is that Joseph needed his credibility enhanced.

Jon,

This seems to be similar to the argument presented by Grant Palmer in An Insider's Guide to Mormon Origins. I've also seen argument that the first vision account took on greater importance much later than this; primarily as a center around which to re-form the church's identity following the manifesto. There are certainly people who recall later hearing Joseph teach the things quoted in the first vision accounts, but nothing material that predate the accounts themselves that I have seen.

The challenge is there are many hypotheticals both sides of the argument accept or reject, depending on one's view, that are difficult to refute when it comes to forming a timeline that consists only of first vision-related material. My personal opinion is the case against a consistent vision becomes less hypothetical when one looks more broadly at what was taught about the godhead by the church at the time a given account was penned or first circulated.