Joseph’s First Vision - 1838 - fact and supposition

[malkie]

I’ve been tweaking this for a couple of days now while watching the topic Not Your Standard First Vision Thread which was started by the new poster who goes by "Limnor", as the old poster who goes by "MG" has called Limnor.

I don’t see any significant overlap in Limnor’s and my topic, so I’m going to go ahead and post this.

I’m not any kind of expert on the First Vision, and although I’ve refreshed my memory by googling, I have not done extensive research on it. As a result I’ll be happy to have better informed posters correct any errors I may have made.

No AI has been used, abused, or otherwise injured in the creation of this post.

============================================================================================================

Two aspects of the First Vision are frequently discussed:

• the various versions - similarities and differences;
• the controversy over the timeline - when the FV took place relative to the local revival, etc

In this topic, at least initially, I’m not particularly interested in either of these discussions.

I’m going to use:

• some statements that I believe will be generally accepted as factual
• some statements - inferences - that, though perhaps not generally considered to be factual, I expect not to be particularly controversial. Of course, some folks will disagree - that’s what discussion is all about.
• statements for the sake of argument, with the normal meaning that while I may not believe them to be true, I’m interested in the implications for the discussion if they were true
• some analysis of what Joseph did and did not say in Joseph Smith-H 1, and what Pres Hinckley claimed or implied that Joseph said
• some appeals to “common sense”, but with the understanding that common sense means different things to different people

Critics are sometimes accused of not being willing to take Joseph at his word. As much as possible, for the sake of argument, I’m taking Joseph at his (canonized) word. I am also assuming that the leaders of the church act in a careful and deliberate manner, and consider the likely effects of their decisions.

[malkie]

Facts?
Here are some things that I believe fit into the category of facts:

1. canonization is of significance in the Mormon church. It gives the stamp of authority to scriptures that other statements lack.
2. the “Standard Works” is a recognized, authoritative collection of books considered sacred by Mormons.
3. the 1838 version of the First Vision was canonized in 1880 as Joseph Smith—History Chapter 1 (Joseph Smith-H 1). This was after the canonization of D&C Sections 1–137.
4. the 1838 version of the First Vision is still (October 2025) part of the Pearl of Great Price, one of the Standard Works of the LDS church.
5. talks given by General Authorities during General Conference, and / or published on official church channels - e.g., church magazines, churchofjesuschrist.org - while not canonized, and unless withdrawn or contradicted by higher authority, are reliable sources of the official teachings of the church.

For the above reasons I intend to address the 1838 version of the First Vision (Joseph Smith-H 1), and to use Pres Hinckley’s October 1998 General Conference talk, What Are People Asking about Us?, as reported in the Ensign in November 1998, as a wrapper that helps to illustrate some points about the content of Joseph Smith-H 1.

References:
Joseph Smith—History Chapter 1
What Are People Asking about Us?

[malkie]

Inferences

1. Joseph Smith wrote what he wanted in his record of the First Vision.
   
   • he had 12+ years to decide what he wanted to say.
   • he deliberately said what he wanted to say - no more, no less.
   • I have seen no indication that he was coerced to write the 1838 version, or any other version; or that he was coerced to write the words it contains; or that he ever wanted to retract any elements of the account.
     There has been some discussion about whether Joseph may have “enhanced” the account, due to being under some pressure regarding his leadership of the church, but I don't think that really matters.
   • he may or may not have had the 1832 and 1835 versions at hand when writing the 1838 version, but I’m not sure that it matters either way.
2. In 1880 the LDS church chose what the then leaders wanted to be the official record of the First Vision. It contains what leaders from then until now have wanted to be the official record of the First Vision.
   • they had about 35-40 years to decide on the official narrative.
   • I have seen no indication that they were coerced to select an official version at all.
   • when the 1838 version of the First Vision was canonized in 1880, the church had had free choice of what version (or what synthesized account) to adopt as the official account. They could choose from four primary accounts given directly by Joseph Smith: 1832 (hidden by Joseph Fielding Smith around 1930), 1835, 1838, 1842. There were also several second-hand accounts.
   • while at least one other canonized scripture (“The Lectures on Faith”) has been decanonized, I have seen no indication that church leaders, over the past 145 years, have wanted to decanonize Joseph Smith-H 1.

From the various First Vision accounts, we know only what Joseph Smith said about an experience he claimed to have had while praying, some time in his teens.

[malkie]

What Are People Asking About Us?
Here is an excerpt from Pres Hinckley’s October 1998 General Conference talk. I’ve added some highlighting for easy reference.

Question 1: What is the Mormon doctrine of Deity, of God?
…
The Prophet Joseph declared, “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345).
…
We do accept, as the basis of our doctrine, the statement of the Prophet Joseph Smith that when he prayed for wisdom in the woods, “the light rested upon me [and] I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is my Beloved Son. Hear Him!” (Joseph Smith—H 1:17).

Two beings of substance were before him. He saw them. They were in form like men, only much more glorious in their appearance. He spoke to them. They spoke to him. They were not amorphous spirits. Each was a distinct personality. They were beings of flesh and bone whose nature was reaffirmed in later revelations which came to the Prophet.

Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. It was the parting of the curtain to open this, the dispensation of the fulness of times. Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration. I submit that if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true. This is the hinge on which turns the gate that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life.

[malkie]

in my opinion, Pres. Hinckley has clearly gone beyond what Joseph said in Joseph Smith-H 1
To illustrate this, let me first summarise Joseph’s narrative, picking out points that Joseph did actually make, and points on which Joseph was silent. Then I'll respond to several of Pres Hinckley’s statements.

With minimal assumptions, and putting no words in Joseph’s mouth:

• while Joseph was praying, two (male?) personages appeared
• he didn’t know who either was
• he didn’t know what either was - “spirit” or physical
• he did not claim that there was any physical interaction with either personage
• neither personage introduced himself or the other, except that one said the other was his son
• if they had introduced themselves, how could Joseph have known if they were telling the truth?
• Joseph and the personages had a conversation about some things Joseph was concerned about

Taking each of the highlighted phrases in Pres. Hinckley’s talk, with reference to Joseph Smith-H 1:

• “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another”
  - if this is true, then I wonder if there is anybody in the Mormon church who satisfies the “first principle of the Gospel”. I have certainly not heard of anyone who claims to exercise that principle. This may be just my personal failing, but I might expect anyone who has that knowledge and makes use of it to tell the members about it.
• Two beings of substance were before him
  - Joseph identified them as “personages”, without describing their composition.
• They were beings of flesh and bone
  - Joseph identified them as “personages”, without describing their composition.
• whose nature was reaffirmed in later revelations
  - since Joseph did not affirm their nature (at least as beings of substance - flesh and bone ), he could not reaffirm it later
• Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. …
  Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration.
  - since Pres Hinckley materially misrepresents the “initial declaration”, might it be that the “entire case” is made invalid?
• if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true.
  - there need be no connection between whom Joseph talked with and the truth or otherwise of any other statement

===========================

What do you think - and why?

[Shulem]

What do you think - and why?

Malkie,

By the good grace of the moderators and our blessed Dr. Shades, I was permitted to break board rules and use a little red ink in my Celestial thread of the The First Vision. I highly suggest you peruse it. In there you will learn that Smith confessed/revealed (Freudian slip) that God the Father was a separate being having a physical body AFTER he began translating the papyrus purchased by the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1835.

It is the bomb and has been highly endorsed by one of our resident scholars:

SERIOUSLY excellent detective work!!! WOW....... dude, I am not worthy of your excellence! May I please make a video (GIVING YOU ABSOLUTELY FULL CREDIT FOR THIS?). I had never put this together like you have. Just wow, this insight is just GIGANTIC! I'm serious, I really want to do a video of this. Shulem you are a treasure!!!

[malkie]

What do you think - and why?

Malkie,

By the good grace of the moderators and our blessed Dr. Shades, I was permitted to break board rules and use a little red ink in my Celestial thread of the The First Vision. I highly suggest you peruse it. In there you will learn that Smith confessed/revealed (Freudian slip) that God the Father was a separate being having a physical body AFTER he began translating the papyrus purchased by the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1835.

It is the bomb and has been highly endorsed by one of our resident scholars:

SERIOUSLY excellent detective work!!! WOW....... dude, I am not worthy of your excellence! May I please make a video (GIVING YOU ABSOLUTELY FULL CREDIT FOR THIS?). I had never put this together like you have. Just wow, this insight is just GIGANTIC! I'm serious, I really want to do a video of this. Shulem you are a treasure!!!

Thanks, Shulem.

I'm not often up in the rarified atmosphere of the CK, but I'll take my breathing apparatus this afternoon and spend some time reading your (no doubt excellent) thread.

[Shulem]

Thanks, Shulem.

I'm not often up in the rarified atmosphere of the CK, but I'll take my breathing apparatus this afternoon and spend some time reading your (no doubt excellent) thread.

You won't regret it!

[MG 2.0]

Inferences

1. Joseph Smith wrote what he wanted in his record of the First Vision.
   
   • he had 12+ years to decide what he wanted to say.
   • he deliberately said what he wanted to say - no more, no less.
   • I have seen no indication that he was coerced to write the 1838 version, or any other version; or that he was coerced to write the words it contains; or that he ever wanted to retract any elements of the account.
     There has been some discussion about whether Joseph may have “enhanced” the account, due to being under some pressure regarding his leadership of the church, but I don't think that really matters.
   • he may or may not have had the 1832 and 1835 versions at hand when writing the 1838 version, but I’m not sure that it matters either way.
2. In 1880 the LDS church chose what the then leaders wanted to be the official record of the First Vision. It contains what leaders from then until now have wanted to be the official record of the First Vision.
   • they had about 35-40 years to decide on the official narrative.
   • I have seen no indication that they were coerced to select an official version at all.
   • when the 1838 version of the First Vision was canonized in 1880, the church had had free choice of what version (or what synthesized account) to adopt as the official account. They could choose from four primary accounts given directly by Joseph Smith: 1832 (hidden by Joseph Fielding Smith around 1930), 1835, 1838, 1842. There were also several second-hand accounts.
   • while at least one other canonized scripture (“The Lectures on Faith”) has been decanonized, I have seen no indication that church leaders, over the past 145 years, have wanted to decanonize Joseph Smith-H 1.

From the various First Vision accounts, we know only what Joseph Smith said about an experience he claimed to have had while praying, some time in his teens.

The 1838 account is not just what Joseph said, it’s what the Church chose to say about what Joseph said. There is no evidence he was coerced, or that he later tried/attempted to retract or revise its core claims. When the LDS Church canonized that version in 1880, it did so deliberately. This one was the one that best aligned/fit with the theological and institutional doctrinal development that was taking shape. That choice wasn’t forced...again, it was intentional.

And the First Vision account from 1838 has remained stable for nearly a century and a half. I'm trying to determine what your overriding concern is?

Regards,
MG

[sock puppet]

Inferences

1. Joseph Smith wrote what he wanted in his record of the First Vision.
   
   • he had 12+ years to decide what he wanted to say.
   • he deliberately said what he wanted to say - no more, no less.
   • I have seen no indication that he was coerced to write the 1838 version, or any other version; or that he was coerced to write the words it contains; or that he ever wanted to retract any elements of the account.
     There has been some discussion about whether Joseph may have “enhanced” the account, due to being under some pressure regarding his leadership of the church, but I don't think that really matters.
   • he may or may not have had the 1832 and 1835 versions at hand when writing the 1838 version, but I’m not sure that it matters either way.
2. In 1880 the LDS church chose what the then leaders wanted to be the official record of the First Vision. It contains what leaders from then until now have wanted to be the official record of the First Vision.
   • they had about 35-40 years to decide on the official narrative.
   • I have seen no indication that they were coerced to select an official version at all.
   • when the 1838 version of the First Vision was canonized in 1880, the church had had free choice of what version (or what synthesized account) to adopt as the official account. They could choose from four primary accounts given directly by Joseph Smith: 1832 (hidden by Joseph Fielding Smith around 1930), 1835, 1838, 1842. There were also several second-hand accounts.
   • while at least one other canonized scripture (“The Lectures on Faith”) has been decanonized, I have seen no indication that church leaders, over the past 145 years, have wanted to decanonize Joseph Smith-H 1.

From the various First Vision accounts, we know only what Joseph Smith said about an experience he claimed to have had while praying, some time in his teens.

The 1838 account is not just what Joseph said, it’s what the Church chose to say about what Joseph said. There is no evidence he was coerced, or that he later tried/attempted to retract or revise its core claims. When the LDS Church canonized that version in 1880, it did so deliberately. This one was the one that best aligned/fit with the theological and institutional doctrinal development that was taking shape. That choice wasn’t forced...again, it was intentional.

And the First Vision account from 1838 has remained stable for nearly a century and a half. I'm trying to determine what your overriding concern is?

Regards,
MG

By 1880, the 1838 account was the most convenient. And so it was so chosen.