In the various accounts of the First Vision left behind by Joseph Smith, the appearance of Jesus Christ, alongside God the Father, takes center stage.1 Yet a passing reference in the 1835 account hints at the possibility that he saw more than the Father and the Son. Just as he was finishing this narration of the his “first communication,” Joseph passingly mentioned how he saw “many angels in this vision.”2
This tantalizing hint suggests that Joseph Smith’s First Vision may have been comparable to the theophanies of ancient Israelite prophets, where they would see God in the midst of his divine council. In ancient Israel, God was believed to rule in heaven, surrounded by a multitude of divine beings, variously called gods, sons of God, holy ones, angels, and other similar titles.3 It was considered the mark of a true prophet that he had seen and heard the proceedings of God’s divine council.4 As such, the calling of new prophet typically followed a narrative pattern culminating in his standing in the midst of the council.
The typical prophetic call narrative began with a historical introduction, often describing a time of trouble in the land which leads the prophet to pray in behalf of the people of Israel. As a result of the prayer, the heavens are opened and the prophet sees God in the midst of the heavenly host, is initiated into the divine council, and is permitted to witness their deliberations and decrees. The vision then culminates with the prophet being commissioned to deliver the message he received from council to the people of Israel.
Latter-day Saint scholars have pointed out that Lehi, in the Book of Mormon, fits this pattern remarkably well.5 The setting is “in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah,” a time when Jerusalem had recently been invaded by the Babylonians and when there were “many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed.” Lehi “went forth prayed unto the Lord, yea, even with all his heart, in behalf of his people.” Lehi’s prayer is answered with a series of visions, beginning with a vision of “a pillar of fire” and culminating with another vision of “God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God.” Members of the divine council descend to earth, and “One,” whose “luster was above that of the sun at noon-day,” handed Lehi a book, containing the decrees of the council (1 Nephi 1:4–14).
Although Joseph Smith did not use the ancient Israelite literary pattern to narrate his First Vision,6 careful study of his accounts suggests that he had a parallel experience. Like Lehi and many of the prophets of old, Joseph lived in a time of “unusual excitement,” living in the center of the second great awakening (Joseph Smith—History 1:5).7 Caught in the midst of a “war of words and tumult of opinions” (Joseph Smith—History 1:10), Joseph went out into a grove of woods to pray. He saw a “pillar of light,” or “pillar of fire,” as he describes it in some accounts, which was “above the brightness of the sun” (Joseph Smith—History 1:16).8 Joseph then saw “two personages,” identified as God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ (Joseph Smith—History 1:17) and—according to his 1835 account—“many angels.”
Thus, Joseph Smith appears to have stood in the midst of the heavenly host, making his First Vision akin to the prophetic calls of ancient prophets. In February 1832, Joseph would have another vision—this one in tandem with Sidney Rigdon—where he clearly described seeing God and Christ in the midst of the heavenly council:
And we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fulness; And saw the holy angels, and them who are sanctified before his throne, worshiping God, and the Lamb, who worship him forever and ever. (Doctrine and Covenants 76:21–22)
With divine council visions like that of D&C 76, and most likely the First Vision as well, Joseph Smith placed himself firmly within the ancient Hebrew prophetic tradition.
2Journal, 1835–1836, p. 24, in Joseph Smith Papers: Journals, vol. 1: 1832–1839, ed. Dean C. Jessee et al. (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historian’s Press, 2008), 87.
6 Neal E. Lambert and Richard H. Cracroft, “Literary Form and Historical Understanding: Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” Journal of Mormon History 7 (1980): 31–42 actually show that Joseph Smith’s narrative form is (unsurprisingly) consistent with that of religious narratives of his own time and place. See also Christopher C. Jones, “The Power and Form of Godliness: Methodist Conversion Narratives and Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” Journal of Mormon History 37, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 88–114.
8 For the “pillar of fire” expression, see Journal, 1835–1836, p. 24, in Joseph Smith Papers: Journals, vol. 1, 87. See also History, ca. Summer 1832, p. 3, in Joseph Smith Papers: Histories, vol. 1: 1832–1844, ed. Karen Lynn Davidson et al. (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 11.
In the canonical 1838–39 account of the First Vision, Joseph Smith identified “two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above [him] in the air” (Joseph Smith–History 1:17). With one exception, the other firsthand accounts of the First Vision left by the Prophet also speak of two personages appearing in the vision. The one exception is the 1832 history, “a rough, unpolished effort [by the Prophet] to record the spiritual impact of the vision on him” and “probably the first time Joseph Smith had even tried to commit his experience to writing.”1 In that account Joseph, in his own hand, described what he saw and heard as follows:
I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and toobtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in <the> attitude of calling upon the Lord a piller of firelight above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee.2
In this the earliest extant firsthand account of his vision, Joseph did not explicitly specify that two personages appeared to him, but rather that, first, “the Lord opened the heavens” upon him, and second, “[he] saw the Lord.” This has led some historians to wonder how, if at all, this might be reconciled with Joseph’s other accounts which do more overtly specify that two personages, the Father and the Son, appeared to him. James Allen and John Welch provide one persuasive reading of the historical sources that finds agreement among other scholars:
Because the 1832 account does not say that two beings were present in the vision, some people have wondered, Did Joseph Smith see two personages or one? Did he alter his story as time went on? With a little explanation, these questions can be answered. First, it is clear that the consensus of the First Vision accounts is that two personages appeared. While the brief 1843 Richards report leaves out many details, including any specific mention of God’s appearance, all of the other eight accounts speak clearly of two divine beings. Second, the remaining account, the 1832 narrative, actually suggests that the vision progressed in two stages: first, Joseph ‘was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me,’ and second he “saw the Lord and he spake unto me.” The second stage clearly refers to Jesus Christ, who identifies himself as the one who was crucified. Though not explicitly stated, the initial mention of the Spirit of God and the Lord may have reference to the presence of God the Father and his opening of this vision, since it is clear in all the other accounts that the vision was opened by God who then introduced his Son. To be sure, the main point of emphasis, especially in the official 1838 account, was that “I had actualy seen a light and in the midst of that light I saw two personages, and they did in reality speak unto me, or one of them did.” Finally, remembering that the 1832 manuscript was an unpolished effort to record the spiritual impact of the vision on him, and that the main content of the heavenly message was delivered by the Son, it is understandable that the Prophet simply emphasized the Lord in the 1832 account. Thus, nothing precludes the possibility that two beings were present.3
This two-stage reading is strengthened by the fact that in his 1835 account of the First Vision, and also in two contemporary secondhand accounts (those captured by David White and Alexander Neibaur as seen in the chart below), Joseph described one personage appearing to him in the midst of the brilliant pillar of light or flame and then the second one appearing immediately after.4 Indeed, it would make functional sense that one being (the Father) was first the focus of Joseph’s attention as the Father “opened the heavens upon” him, at which point Joseph then “saw the Lord [the Son].”
Keeping in mind that the various divine titles for the members of the Godhead were not necessarily uniform or standardized among Latter-day Saints in the Prophet’s lifetime,5 nothing precludes the possibility that the 1832 account refers to both God the Father and Jesus Christ as “the Lord.”6 As historian Richard L. Anderson elaborates,
Possibly the term Lord referred to the Father in the first instance, while afterward referring to the Son, who declared his atonement for the sins of all. This is the most personalized of all the vision accounts, and Joseph Smith is preoccupied with Christ’s assurance, evidently only hinting at the presence of the Father. Yet in the Prophet’s 1838 public history, the Father introduced the Son and told Joseph to “Hear Him!” (JS—H 1:17). Joseph’s 1832 account verifies that the answer came from Christ himself; this account concentrates on the Savior’s words as the response to Joseph’s prayer. From the beginning, the resurrected Savior directed the reestablishment of his own church.7
Additionally, contextual clues from the 1832 history reinforce this argument. The opening lines of this text situate the First Vision as just the first in a series of momentous events leading to “the rise of the church of Christ in the eve of time.”8 The first event in this sequence is described as Joseph “receiving the testamony from on high,” meaning the First Vision. Second is “the ministering of Angels,” meaning the appearance of Moroni. Third is “the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of—Aangels to adminster the letter of the Law <Gospel–>,” meaning probably the restoration of the priesthood by John the Baptist. Fourth, and finally, is “a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God,” referring to either the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood by Peter, James, and John or the June 1831 conference that witnessed the first confirmations of elders to the high priesthood.9
As Matthew Brown and Gregory Smith have both observed, the description of Joseph “receiving the testamony from on high” could very likely be referring to God the Father testifying that Jesus Christ is His Son.10 Given the narrative sequence of the history (which begins with an account of the First Vision [pp. 2–3] and then describes the appearance of Moroni and the translation of the Book of Mormon [pp. 3–6]), this could only work as a reference to God the Father testifying of His Son during Joseph’s First Vision. As Brown writes, although the presence of God the Father is not explicitly “described as making an appearance alongside His Son in the” 1832 First Vision account, “the words the Father spoke to Joseph Smith [‘This is my Beloved Son – Hear Him!’] during that experience are alluded to” with the prefatory note that in the vision Joseph “receiv[ed] the testamony from on high.”11 This is consistent with the other First Vision accounts that have the Father testifying of the Son and would, in turn, necessitate two personages being implicitly present in the 1832 account even if only one is explicitly described. In other words, the 1832 account could easily be read as describing Joseph’s experience with two divine beings, one whom he at least heard, and the other whom he saw and also heard.
Some have argued that Joseph’s 1832 history describes only one divine personage because his views on the nature of God allegedly evolved over time, and earlier in his life he held to more traditional Trinitarian views.12 This argument seems unlikely for a few reasons, not the least being that a vision received by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon in February 1832 (Doctrine and Covenants 76) contains explicit mention of them seeing Jesus Christ on the right hand of God the Father, who bore witness of His Son (vv. 20–23).13 The earliest extant manuscript of this vision was composed or copied probably between February and March 1832, several months before the 1832 history, which was begun later that summer.14 If Joseph was already claiming to have seen both the Father and the Son in early 1832, then the reason for the less explicit mention of the Father in the 1832 account of the First Vision cannot plausibly have been due to an alleged evolution from a Trinitarian to a non-Trinitarian theology on Joseph Smith’s part.15
As historian James B. Allen rightly concludes, after looking at the available historical evidence, “All accounts of the First Vision but one specify that two heavenly personages appeared to young Joseph, and three [secondhand accounts] state that these personages exactly resembled each other. There is no doubt that the Prophet intended to convey the message that they were the Father and the Son.”16
“a personage appeard in the midst, of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first . . . . <and I saw many angels in this vision>”
“I saw a light, and then a glorious personage in the light, and then another personage, and the first personage said to the second, ‘Behold my beloved Son, hear him.’”
“saw a fire towards heaven came near & nearer saw a personage in the fire light complexion blue eyes a piece of white cloth drawn over his shoulders his right arm bear after a w[h]ile a other person came to the side of the first”
Matthew B. Brown, A Pillar of Light: The History and Message of the First Vision (American Fork, UT: Covenant, 2009), 92–94.
Gregory L. Smith, “More Testimony from On High? A Note on the Presence of God the Father in Joseph Smith’s 1832 First Vision Account,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, forthcoming.
3 James B. Allen and John W. Welch, “Analysis of Joseph Smith’s Accounts of His First Vision,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestation, 1820–1844, ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2017), 66–67, see also 44–48.
4 Charles Lowell Walker preserved John Alger’s 1893 report of Joseph Smith informing him (Alger) that God the Father appeared first to Joseph in the vision and physically touched his eyes, whereupon he then saw Christ. The detail in Alger’s report of God the Father appearing first and then the Son directly afterwards is consistent with other secondhand reports of the First Vision, as well as one firsthand account from the Prophet, but the added detail that God touched Joseph’s eyes is unique to Alger. The reliability of Alger’s account is hampered by its late, thirdhand nature, meaning it must be accepted very cautiously (if at all). A. Karl Larson and Katharine Miles Larson, eds., Diary of Charles Lowell Walker (Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1980), 2:755–756.
5 See Ryan Conrad Davis and Paul Y. Hoskisson, “Usage of the Title Elohim in the Hebrew Bible and Early Latter-day Saint Literature,” in Bountiful Harvest: Essays in Honor of S. Kent Brown, ed. Andrew C. Skinner, D. Morgan Davis, and Carl Griffin (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute, 2011), 113–135; “Usage of the Title Elohim,”Religious Educator 14, no. 1 (2013): 109–127.
6 Allen, “Eight Contemporary Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” 7, writes that, as mentioned, in some of the accounts this detail is explicit, and that “nothing in [the remaining accounts, including the 1832 history] precludes the possibility that [Joseph] may have seen one personage first, and then the other.” Compare the similar observation in Steven C. Harper, “A Seeker’s Guide to the Historical Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,”Religious Educator: Perspectives on the Restored Gospel 12, no. 1 (2011): 168.
9Minutes, ca. 3–4 June 1831; cf. Michael Hubbard MacKay et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 1: July 1828–June 1831 (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2013), 317–327.
10 Matthew B. Brown, A Pillar of Light: The History and Message of the First Vision (American Fork, UT: Covenant, 2009), 92–94; Gregory L. Smith, “More Testimony from On High? A Note on the Presence of God the Father in Joseph Smith’s 1832 First Vision Account,” forthcoming, manuscript in BMC staff possession, cited with permission.
12 See for instance Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1996), 1:60n22; Grant Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2002), 240n7.
13Vision, 16 February 1832 [D&C 76], 2–3; cf. Matthew C. Godfrey et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 2: July 1831–January 1833 (Salt Lake City, UT: Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2013), 179–192.
14 Matthew C. Godfrey et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 2, 183, 279.
When Latter-day Saints tell the story of the First Vision today, they frequently emphasize Joseph Smith’s age when he entered the grove of trees near his family home to seek God in prayer. For instance, an article on the official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints states the following: “When Joseph Smith was 14 years old, he wanted to know which church he should join, so he asked God in sincere prayer. In response to this prayer, God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph and told him the true Church of Jesus Christ was not on the earth and They had chosen Joseph to restore it.”1 In another article published in the February 2020 issue of the Ensign, a magazine published by the Church, President Henry B. Eyring of the First Presidency recognized, “When 14-year-old Joseph Smith walked out of a grove of trees in Palmyra, New York, USA, he knew for himself that God communicates with His children in mortality.”2
Describing Joseph as fourteen years old when he experienced his First Vision comes from his 1838–39 history as canonized in the Pearl of Great Price. In that account Joseph described himself as “an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age” when he experienced his vision “early in the spring of eight hundred and twenty” (Joseph Smith–History 1:22–23, 14). A look at Joseph’s three other extant contemporary firsthand accounts of his First Vision reveals an overall consistency in this detail.
In his 1835 and 1842 accounts of the First Vision, Joseph identified himself as being, respectively, “about 14. years old” and “about fourteen years of age” when he experienced his vision.3 In another retelling, Joseph informed Erastus Holmes that he was “about 14 years old” when he received “the first visitation of Angels.”4
There is one exception, however. In Joseph’s earliest surviving account of his vision scribe Frederick G. Williams inserted interlineally that he was “in the 16th year of [his] age” when he called upon the Lord for forgiveness of his sins.5
The first point to keep in mind is that Joseph was consistent throughout his other accounts in placing his age at between fourteen and fifteen years old when he received his vision in the early spring of 1820. So too were the contemporary secondhand accounts of the First Vision recorded or published in Joseph’s lifetime, which all place him at that same age.6 What’s more, “in the 16th year of my age” does not necessarily mean Joseph was claiming he was sixteen years old when he had his vision, but could actually indicate that Joseph was no older than fifteen years old at the time of the vision. As historian D. Michael Quinn has observed, “like many people today, Joseph Jr. was confused by the distinction between stating his age . . . and its equivalent year-of-life.”7 The “16th year of [Joseph’s] age” would actually have started on his fifteenth birthday in December 1820,8 so while the dating of the vision in the 1832 account is still anomalous, it is not dramatically divergent from Joseph’s stated age of “about 14 years old” and “between fourteen and fifteen years of age” at the time of the vision in early 1820 in his later narratives.9
Looking at the 1832 history in fuller narrative context likewise helps make sense of this discrepancy.
Joseph Smith wrote that “at about the age of twelve years” his mind became concerned “with regard to the all importent concerns” of his immortal soul. He then became aggrieved that the various denominations did not “adorn their profession by a holy walk” as required by the Bible, and he pondered in his heart many things concerning the darkness of the world for three years, “from the age of twelve years to fifteen,” culminating with the vision in that year, as he says, when he was “in the 16th year of my age” (that is, fifteen years old). Here we learn that Joseph’s personal spiritual concerns began earlier (at the age of twelve) than we might otherwise have supposed and that his discontent over the contentions, divisions, wickedness, and abominations around him grew over a period of two to three years. It is understandable that, in preparing his 1832 draft, he might have thought of those intense struggles as having lasted a year longer than they actually had. After more careful reflection, he would consistently report that the answer came in his fifteenth year.10
Finally, as Matthew Brown has pointed out, by his own admission Joseph only had a rudimentary grasp of “the ground of Arithmatic.”11 When this point is brought into consideration, “it becomes apparent that the chronology changes that take place in Joseph Smith’s historical narrations originate not from an evolutionary scheme of storytelling but rather from a pronounced lack of mathematical skills” and perhaps simple lapses of memory in his first attempt to record his history.12 In other words, there is no reason to conclude that Joseph was fabricating the story of his First Vision simply because he innocently misremembered his age by less than a year in one of his accounts. And all of this, of course, assumes that Williams’ insertion of the phrase “in the 16th year of my age” in the 1832 history was at Joseph’s behest and was not an independent scribal interpolation.
The anomalous dating in the 1832 history notwithstanding, the cumulative historical evidence strongly favors the “traditional” date of early 1820 for the First Vision when Joseph was fourteen years old.
7 D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1998), 141.
8 Compare the language of the Universalist minister Sylvanus Cobb, who was born on July 17, 1798 and wrote of being converted in “the 16th year of [his] age” in “the autumn of 1813” when he was fifteen years old. Sylvanus Cobb, Jr., comp., The Autobiography of the First Forty-One Years of the Life of Sylvanus Cobb, D.D. (Boston: Universalist Publishing House, 1867), 23, 39; or the Reverend William Andrew Crocker, born on November 4, 1825, who wrote of his “formal profession of religion” in the “summer of 1841, in the 18th year of [his] age” when he was between sixteen and seventeen years old. John J. Lafferty, Sketches of the Virginia Conference, Methodist Episcopal Church, South (Richmond, VA: Christian Advocate Office, 1880), 37; or Dan Bradley, born on June 10, 1767, who “became a member of Yale College” in “September 1785” in “the 19th. year of [his] age” when he was eighteen years old. Israel Parsons, The Centennial History, of the Town of Marcellus, Delivered in the Presbyerian Church, of Marcellus, Onondaga County, N.Y. (Marcellus, NY: Reed’s Printing House, 1878), 36; or the poet Thomas Chatterton, born on November 20, 1752, who “in the summer of 1763, being then in the 12th year of [his] age, . . . contracted an intimacy with one Thomas Phillips” when he was eleven years old. The Poetical Works of Thomas Chatterton (Cambridge: W. P. Grant, 1842), 1:xvii, xxv. Additional examples could be multiplied (e.g. J. M. Russell, The History of Maidstone [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1881], 392–393). It is also noteworthy that in the Book of Mormon the prophet-historian Mormon presented himself as being “fifteen years of age” (Mormon 1:15) at the commencement of his military career and yet in the next chapter, still in the same year, Mormon refers to himself as being “in [his] sixteenth year” (Mormon 2:1–2).
9 As Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 460n46, and Matthew B. Brown, A Pillar of Light: The History and Message of the First Vision (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2009), 99, point out, Joseph and other members of the Smith family sometimes experienced the same confusion (age vs. year-of-life) when it came to remembering other important dates, such as the age of Alvin Smith, Joseph’s older brother, at the time of his death.
12 Brown, A Pillar of Light, 99–101. On the role of memory in shaping Joseph’s accounts of the First Vision, see Steven C. Harper, First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019), esp. 9–44.
Joseph Smith remembered the time leading up to his First Vision as a period of intense personal struggle trying to decide which church, if any, was true. “At about the age of twelve years my mind become seriously imprest with the all important concerns for the well fare of my immortal Soul,” Joseph recalled in his 1832 history.1 As his mind was “wrought up” on “the subject of religion,” Joseph considered “the different systems [of religion] taught [to] the children of men,” and “knew not who was right or who was wrong.”2
Later in his 1838–39 history, Joseph remembered that this personal religious quest for the truth was happening in the midst of “an unusual excitement on the subject of religion.”3 Beginning “in the place where [he and his family] lived” with the Methodists, this religious excitement “soon became general among all the sects” and spread throughout “that region of country” until “the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties” (Joseph Smith—History 1:5).4
Historical records and primary sources confirm that there was considerable religious activity throughout much of western New York in the early 1800s.5 During this time, multi-day Methodist revival meetings were regularly held throughout the region, featuring dozens—and sometimes even hundreds—of preachers and attracting crowds in the thousands from miles around.6
In Palmyra specifically, “The great revival of 1816 and 1817, which nearly doubled the number of Palmyra Presbyterians, was [still] in progress when the Smiths arrived.”7 The next year, in June 1818, a Methodist camp meeting was held on the outskirts of town, drawing in a crowd of around 2000—twice the population of Palmyra itself—and featuring a high-ranking leader in the American Methodist church.8 Another Methodist camp meeting with at least 1000 people in attendance was held in Palmyra in June 1820.9 In July 1819, the neighboring town of Phelps (also called Vienna) was the host of a major regional conference of the Methodist church, bringing in around 100 preachers from all across western New York, northern Pennsylvania, and southern Canada. These preachers held camp-meetings throughout the region as they traveled to and from the conference.10
Each of these events initiated by the Methodists in Palmyra and the surrounding area between the years 1818–1820 would indeed have generated “an unusual excitement” and provide a glimpse of the “great excitement” which promoted “serious reflection and great uneasiness” in young Joseph while at other times making him “greatly excited” (Joseph Smith—History 1:8–9).11 Sarepta Marsh Baker, who attended some these revival meetings around Palmyra as a teenager in either 1819 or 1820, similarly remembered these events as a “religious cyclone which swept over the region round about.”12
Much of western New York was experiencing similar religious excitement. “Between 1816 and 1821,” writes historian Milton V. Backman, “revivals were reported in more towns and a greater number of settlers joined churches than in any previous period of New York history.”13 Several towns within a 20-mile radius of the Smith farm experienced heightened religious excitement in 1819–1820, and Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians all experienced significant membership gains throughout western New York at this time.14
Accounts of revivalism and major membership gains in other parts of western New York were reported directly in Palmyra and would have spread by word of mouth as people traveled as far as 50 miles or more to attend revival meetings and regional conferences.15
This evidence of religious excitement both directly in Palmyra and within the much larger “whole district of country” is consistent with Joseph Smith’s account.16 As historian Richard Lloyd Anderson explained: “Joseph’s 1838 history creates two geographical levels explaining local as against regional religious conflict, his tighter home area as against expansion throughout a broader ‘district,’ possibly intended as the technical Methodist term.”17 Joseph identified “unusual excitement” in his immediate environs in and around Palmyra while “the great multitudes [who] united themselves to the different religious parties” were said to have been throughout “the whole district of country” (Joseph Smith—History 1:5). As Anderson concluded:
Joseph quickly identified the crescendo of growth as the “whole district of country,” which may be a general term for his larger area or his technical term for the whole Methodist Genesee District. . . . This multicounty Methodist “District” increased by 1,187 in the conference year ending July 1819. . . . [Thus] Joseph’s accounts [of his First Vision] coalesce not only with each other but also with family, local, and revival records, showing that his First Vision setting is historically authentic.18
Matthew B. Brown, A Pillar of Light: The History and Message of the Frist Vision (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2009), 11–23.
Footnotes
1History, ca. Summer 1832, p. 1, in Joseph Smith Papers: Histories, vol. 1: 1832–1844, ed. Karen Lynn Davidson et al. (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 11.
2Journal, 1835–1836, p. 23, in Joseph Smith Papers: Journals, vol. 1: 1832–1839, ed. Dean C. Jessee et al. (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historian’s Press, 2008), 87.
4History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1, p. 1–2 in Joseph Smith Papers: Histories, vol. 1, 208. See also the interview of Joseph Smith recorded by David Nye White, which quotes Joseph as explaining, “There was a reformation among the different religious denominations in the neighborhood where I lived, and I became serious, and was desirous to know what Church to join.” See David Nye White, Interview, 21 August 1843, p. 3, online at josephsmithpapers.org.
5 See “Awakenings and Revivals,” online at history.churchofjesuschrist.org. Whitney R. Cross, The Burned-over District: The Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religion in Western New York, 1800–1850 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1950). See also Paul E. Johnson, A Shopkeeper’s Millennium: Society and Revivals in Rochester, New York, 1815–1837, rev. ed. (New York, NY: Hill and Wang, 2004); Michael Barkun, Crucible of the Millennium: The Burned-over District of New York in the 1840s (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1986); Rachel Cope, “From Smouldering Fires to Revitalizing Showers: A Historiographical Overview of Revivalism in Nineteenth-Century New York,” Wesley and Methodist Studies 2 (2012): 25–49, esp. 37–39; Richard E. Bennett, 1820: Dawning of the Restoration (Provo and Salt Lake City, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, and Deseret Book, 2020), 317–342, esp. 329–342.
6 For background on camp-meetings, see Milton V. Backman Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision: Confirming Evidences and Contemporary Accounts, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City, UT: 1980), 71–74; D. Michael Quinn, “Joseph Smith’s Experience on a Methodist ‘Camp-Meeting’ in 1820,” Dialogue Paperless #3 (December 2006): 26–29.
7 Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York, NY: Alfred Knopf, 2005), 36.
8 See Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s Accuracy on the First Vision Setting: The Pivotal 1818 Palmyra Camp Meeting,” in Exploring the First Vision, ed. Samuel Alonzo Dodge and Steven C. Harper (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2013), 104–116; Quinn, “Joseph Smith’s Experience,” 2–4. See also Matthew B. Brown, A Pillar of Light: The History and Message of the First Vision (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2009), 11–12.
9 Quinn, “Joseph Smith’s Experience,” 4, 30–40. Although this camp meeting may be too late to have directly influenced Joseph before his vision, Quinn argues that Joseph’s vision may have been later in the season than typically assumed (see pp. 23–24).
10 See Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision, 81–82; Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s Accuracy,” 116–118; Brown, Pillar of Light, 12–13.
11History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1, p. 2, in Joseph Smith Papers: Histories, vol. 1, 208–210. See also Alexander Neibaur, Journal, 24 May 1844, p. 23, online at josephsmithpapers.org: “Br Joseph tolt us the first call he had a Revival Meeting … he wanted to get Religion too wanted to feel & shout like the Rest but could feel nothing.”
12 As cited in Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision, 89. Backman situates her description of the era in the period immediately after the 1819 Genesee Conference in Phelps, but Quinn, “Joseph Smith’s Experience,” 45–46 situates it in the context of the 1820 camp meeting in Palmyra.
14 See Milton V. Backman Jr., “Awakenings in the Burned-over District: New Light on the Historical Setting of the First Vision,”BYU Studies 9, no. 3 (1969): 301–320, esp. the map on pp. 312–313; reprinted in Exploring the First Vision, 171–197 (map on p. 182). See also Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision, 53–89 (map on pp. 86–87). Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s Accuracy,” 99–101, also documents significant religious growth throughout the broader region of western New York.
15 See Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision, 88–89; Quinn, “Joseph Smith’s Experience,” 36; Brown, Pillar of Light, 13–16. Quinn, “Joseph Smith’s Experience,” 27. Later, Quinn documents ministers attending the Palmyra 1820 camp meeting from as far as 85 miles away, and notes that over 50 miles is not an unusual distance for even non-ministers to travel for such events (see pp. 47, 53). See also Milton V. Backman Jr., “Lo, Here! Lo, There! Early in the Spring of 1820,” in The Prophet Joseph: Essays on the Life and Mission of Joseph Smith, ed. Larry C. Porter and Susan Easton Black (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1988), 24.
During his lifetime, Joseph Smith provided four firsthand accounts of his First Vision.1 These primary accounts serve as the foundation for understanding the Prophet’s early history and prophetic call. During his lifetime, however, Joseph also on occasion recounted his First Vision to trusted friends and the public at large. Those who heard him retell the First Vision story then recorded these rehearsals in both published works and private journals. These secondary accounts act as important historical data in two important ways: first, they capture some details about the vision that Joseph himself did not preserve in his firsthand accounts, and second, they serve as evidence that even though he was overall reticent to speak too much about it, Joseph was nevertheless telling others about the First Vision during his lifetime.2 A look at the known contemporary secondhand accounts of the First Vision is helpful to fully capture and appreciate what Joseph saw, heard, and felt on that important occasion.
In 1840, while on a mission in the British Isles, apostle Orson Pratt published A[n] Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records as a missionary tract. “Pratt began his thirty-one-page pamphlet by describing [Joseph Smith]’s first vision of Deity and the later visit [Joseph] received from ‘the angel of the Lord.’” In addition, “He summarized the contents of the Book of Mormon, reprinted the statements of two groups of witnesses who saw the gold plates, and concluded with a fifteen-point ‘sketch of the faith and doctrine of this Church.’”3 In this tract, Pratt hit upon most of the major points narrated by Joseph himself in his earlier accounts of the First Vision, including his confusion over which Christian denomination of his day was the true faith, his reliance on James 1:5 to find guidance, retiring to a grove of trees to pray, seeing “two glorious personages, who exactly resembled each other in their features or likeness,” being forgiven of his sins, and being told to join none of the existing churches.4 Pratt’s 1840 telling of the First Vision emphasizes the factor of reason, which told Joseph’s mind that there was only “one doctrine,” one “Church of Christ,” to be known with “certainty,” through “positive and definite evidence.” Pratt was also the first to mention that the bright light that descended on Joseph was so intense that the boy “expected . . . the leaves and boughs of the trees [to be] consumed.”5
Pratt’s pamphlet proved to be highly influential. “The first American edition was printed in New York in 1841, and reprints appeared in Europe, Australia, and the United States.” Although not a firsthand source from Joseph Smith himself “because [he] did not write it, assign it, or supervise its creation,” some of the language and content of A[n] Interesting Account was nevertheless appropriated by the Prophet in his 1842 “Church History” editorial that included a narrative of the First Vision.6 At the same time, it obvious that Pratt knew about the First Vision before leaving for the British Isles from either Joseph directly or from his papers, and it is possible that Pratt had been instructed by Joseph on some of the details to publish about the First Vision once in Europe, thus accounting for these consistencies.
Two years after Pratt published A[n] Interesting Account another apostle, Orson Hyde, published a missionary tract in Germany titled Ein Ruf aus der Wüste, eine Stimme aus dem Schoose der Erde (A Cry out of the Wilderness, A Voice from the Bowels of the Earth). Using Pratt’s A[n] Interesting Account as his “principle source,”7 Hyde touched on the same points as Pratt in his retelling of the First Vision. One detail included by Hyde but not by Pratt, however, is that as Joseph prayed in the grove “the adversary” filled his “mind with doubts and . . . . all manner of inappropriate images [that] prevent[ed] him from obtaining the object of his endeavors.”8 Although Hyde’s overseas pamphlet did not become as popular or influential as Pratt’s, it is significant as “the first account [of the First Vision] published in a language other than English.”9
In a meeting at the temple in Nauvoo, Illinois on the evening of June 11, 1843, Levi Richards, one of the Prophet’s clerks and a Church historian, heard Joseph give an account of his First Vision.10 This retelling came right after Elder George Adams spoke on the Book of Mormon and passages from Isaiah 24, 28, and 29 concerning the apostasy from Christ’s everlasting covenant. After summarizing Adams’ remarks, Richards then recorded,
Pres. J. Smith bore testimony to the same— saying that when he was a youth he began to think about these these things but could not find out which of all the sects were right— he went into the grove & enquired of the Lord which of all the sects were right— re received for answer that none of them were right, that they were all wrong, & that the Everlasting covena[n]t was broken.11
That the Prophet would focus this rehearsal of the First Vision on Christ’s affirmation of the reality of the Great Apostasy (a detail present in each of Joseph’s extant firsthand accounts) is understandable given the context of the message Adams had just delivered. As with the 1832 firsthand account which focuses heavily on Joseph’s personal quest for forgiveness of his sins,12 this secondary account recorded by Richards indicates that on occasion Joseph preferred emphasizing certain aspects of his vision to given audiences and to illustrate specific theological points.
“Joseph Smith and His Friends” by William Warner Major, via The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some of the known secondhand accounts of the First Vision came from members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (such as Orson Pratt and Orson Hyde, depicted here).
A few months after this June 1843 meeting, a journalist named David Nye White, senior editor of the Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette, interviewed Joseph for his paper while travelling through Nauvoo and the nearby area.13 “During the conversation that ensued, the Prophet related the circumstances of his 1820 vision.”14 In this interview, Joseph reiterated the familiar points present in his earlier accounts, with the added detail that the specific place in the grove where he prayed was in a clearing that had a “stump where [he] had stuck [his] axe when [he] had quit work” the previous day (presumably).
The final contemporary secondary account of the First Vision comes from Alexander Neibaur, a trusted Jewish German friend of the Prophet’s who had joined the Church in England in 1837some years previously and had immigrated to Nauvoo four years later.15 “In May 1844 Neibaur was present at a small gathering to which Joseph gave an account of his vision just a month before he was murdered.”16 Included in this gathering was a certain person identified as a “Mr Bonnie” by Neibaur, meaning probably Edward Bonney,17 who was not a member of the Church (and indeed was not even very religious per se) but was a member of the Council of Fifty.18
In this mixed audience of close confidants and as preserved in Neibaur’s “sincere, unpolished style that one would expect from a humble devotee not used to writing in English,”19 Joseph retold how “he wanted to get Religion too wanted to feel & shout like the Rest but could feel nothing.” Importantly, Neibaur preserved Joseph’s only description of the personage who otherwise “def[ied] all description” (Joseph Smith–History 1:17) as “light complexion blue eyes a piece of white cloth drawn over his shoulders his right arm bear after a w[h]ile a other person came to the side of the first.” Considering the audience and this intimate context, “there is a strong possibility that . . . though recorded by Neibaur, [this retelling of the First Vision] may have been given primarily for the benefit of the Prophet’s non-religious friend and Council of the Fifty member, Edward Bonney.”20 Neibaur’s account echoes details that span the full range of the primary First Vision accounts from 1832 down to the versions published in the final years of Joseph’s life.
It should be remembered that these are the known contemporary secondhand accounts of the First Vision. It is almost certain that Joseph told more individuals about his vision but that these retellings were not recorded or have not survived.21 Later reminiscences from individuals who knew Joseph corroborate this. For instance, Joseph Curtis remembered Joseph providing an account of his First Vision in 1835 while visiting the Saints in Michigan.22 Edward Stevenson recalled late in his life that in 1834 he along with “many large congregations” heard the Prophet “testif[y] with great power concerning the visit of the Father and the Son, and the conversation he had with them.”23 And Mary Isabella Horne recounted how she first met Joseph as a young woman while living in Toronto, Canada in the fall of 1837 and remembered hearing him “relate his first vision, when the Father and the Son appeared to him; [and] also his receiving the gold plates from the Angel Moroni.”24 Although these reminiscences must be accepted cautiously because of their secondhand nature and in some cases because of their great distance from the time of the events, they are consistent with Joseph’s own firsthand accounts and are reinforced by the known fact that the Prophet was indeed telling others (including non-Latter-day Saints such as Robert Matthews and Erastus Holmes) about his vision during the mid-1830s.25
When brought together, these firsthand and secondary accounts constitute “the entire known historical record that relates directly to the contemporary descriptions of Joseph Smith’s first vision” and potentially make that vision “the best documented theophany in history.”26
2 For an overview of these accounts, see Milton V. Backman, Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1971; 2nd edition, 1980), 170–177; Steven C. Harper, Joseph Smith’s First Vision: A Guide to the Historical Accounts (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2012), 54–66.
3 Karen Lynn Davidson et al., eds. The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Volume 1: Joseph Smith Histories, 1832–1844 (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 519.
4 Pratt, A[n] Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, 3–5, reproduced in Davidson et al., eds. The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Volume 1, 522–524.
5 Pratt, A[n] Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, 5, reproduced in Davidson et al., eds. The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Volume 1, 524.
6 Davidson et al., eds. The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Volume 1, 519–520.
7 Davidson et al., eds. The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Volume 1, 519.
8 Hyde, Ein Ruf aus der Wüste, 14–15, English translation via the Joseph Smith Papers website. The German original reads: “Er umnachtete seinen Verstand mit Zweifeln und führte seiner Seele allerlei unpassende Bilder vor, um ihn an der Erreichung des Gegenstandes seiner Bestrebungen zu hinder.”
9 Steven C. Harper, Joseph Smith’s First Vision: A Guide to the Historical Accounts (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2012), 60.
13 David White, “The Prairies, Nauvoo, Joe Smith, the Temple, the Mormons, &c.,” Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette (September 15, 1843); reprinted in Dean C. Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith, Volume 1: Autobiographical and Historical Writings (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1989), 438–444.
14 Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith, Volume 1, 443.
15 Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith, Volume 1, 459–461.
17 Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith, Volume 1, 459.
18 See “Bonney, Edward William” online at the Joseph Smith Papers website; Quinten Zehn Barney, “A Contextual Background for Joseph Smith’s Last Known Recounting of the First Vision,” 8–9, unpublished manuscript in authors’ possession, cited with permission.
19 Allen and Welch, “Analysis of Joseph Smith’s Accounts of His First Vision,” 55.
20 Barney, “A Contextual Background for Joseph Smith’s Last Known Recounting of the First Vision,” 8.
21 See Steven C. Harper, First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019), 53–57.
22 Joseph Curtis reminiscences and diary, 1839 October-1881 March, p. 5 (CHL MS 1654). Historian Steven C. Harper, First Vision, 53, dates this retelling to 1839.
23 Edward Stevenson, Reminiscences of Joseph, the Prophet, And the Coming Forth of The Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Edward Stevenson, 1893), 4. Stevenson, born in 1820, would have been a teenager when he first heard Joseph Smith recount his First Vision. Although the year is different, it is possible that Stevenson is recounting the same occasion of Joseph preaching in Michigan as in Curtis’ reminiscence. At the very least, these two sources corroborate the idea that Joseph was telling others his First Vision story in the mid-1830s.
24 “Testimony of Sister M. Isabella Horne,” Woman’s Exponent, June 1910, 6. Horne died in 1905, which means although her reminiscence was published in 1910, it was recounted some years earlier. In the fall of 1837 when she first met Joseph Smith she would have been about 19 years old.
25 On the contemporary retellings of the First Vision to Matthews and Holmes, see Journal, 1835–1836, 23–24, 36–37. See further Matthew B. Brown, A Pillar of Light: The History and Message of the First Vision (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2009), 195–215; Harper, Joseph Smith’s First Vision, 54n13.
In 1842, as Nauvoo, Illinois was growing rapidly and Joseph Smith was gaining more notoriety on a national level, a Chicago newspaperman named John Wentworth solicited “a summary of the doctrines and history of the Latter-day Saints” from Joseph on behalf of his friend George Barstow, who was writing a history of the state of New Hampshire.1 Joseph obliged, and provided Wentworth with a short “sketch of the rise, progress, persecution, and faith of the Latter-Day Saints.”2 Joseph took the request from Wentworth seriously, since “opportunities for favorable treatment of the church in non-Mormon publications were rare, and some previous attempts had not been entirely successful.”3 In this history, which was ultimately not published by Barstow but was published by the Prophet in the Times and Seasons as “Church History,” and which is known widely today as the Wentworth Letter, “[Joseph] recounted his first vision of Deity and the production of the Book of Mormon. He also included a thirteen-point summary of Latter-day Saint beliefs, known today as the Articles of Faith.”4
The account of the First Vision provided by the Prophet in this history is somewhat brief, but hits upon the major points that are also present in his previous narratives. He begins this part of the history with, “When about fourteen years of age I began to reflect upon the importance of being prepared for a future state, and upon enquiring the plan of salvation I found that there was a great clash in religious sentiment.” “[C]onsidering that all could not be right,” Joseph reasoned, “and that God could not be the author of so much confusion I determined to investigate the subject more fully.” This Joseph did by turning to the Bible, where he encountered passages such as James 1:5. “I retired to a secret place in a grove and began to call upon the Lord,” he continued, and “while fervently engaged in supplication my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded, and I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision and saw two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features, and likeness, surrounded with a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noon-day.” The personages told Joseph “that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom.” Joseph was “expressly commanded to ‘go not after them,’” and instead received “a promise that the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto [him].”5
This account of the First Vision is marked by a “concise, straightforward, unadorned, informative, and matter-of-fact” tone. This makes perfect sense since “this account was meant for publication by the non-Mormon press” and thus has “the characteristics one would expect to find in a public relations statement.”6 Unlike Joseph’s 1838–39 account which was written during a time of severe persecution for Joseph and the Saints, the 1842 account was written during a time of relative peace and calm. It was also solicited in good faith by an influential and sincerely inquisitive non-Latter-day Saint journalist. Joseph’s voice in the 1842 account is therefore not as defensive or polemical as in his previous account. For example, the 1842 account lacks any mention of the local opposition to Joseph’s vision (a theme that is prominent in the 1838–39 account), and instead of quoting the Lord as harshly saying the Christian creeds were an “abomination” (Joseph Smith–History 1:19), instead he is paraphrased as simply saying that “all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines.”
The 1842 account of the First Vision also bears the marks of Joseph Smith’s evolving literary style and his reliance on clerks and ghostwriters (such as William W. Phelps, John Taylor, and others) to assist him in telling his history.7 Unlike Joseph’s 1832 account of the First Vision, the language of this account is highly polished and sophisticated and peppered with Latin phrases such as summum bonum (“the highest good”), all of which rhetorically serves to give readers an impression of the Prophet’s learnedness. Joseph likewise drew from the language of previously published works such as Orson Pratt’s influential 1840 missionary tract A[n] Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions in this retelling of his early visions.8 The cumulative effect of all of this is a tone running throughout this account that is erudite while also “confident and self-assured.”9
The influence of this account of the First Vision can be seen in its republication on multiple occasions throughout the succeeding decade after its initial appearance in 1842. Both Latter-day Saints and non-Latter-day Saints republished both extracts and verbatim copies of “Church History” in newspapers, books, and tracts throughout the 1840s and early 50s.10 In 1843, at the direction of Joseph Smith, William Phelps prepared a slightly revised and updated version of “Church History” for the publisher Clyde, Williams & Co., which was preparing a volume surveying contemporary religious movements in the United States. A year later Phelps’ revised version of Joseph’s 1842 history appeared as an article titled “Latter Day Saints” in the book He Pasa Ekklesia edited by Israel Daniel Rupp.11
Although the 1842 “Church History” editorial would later be eclipsed by Joseph’s 1838–39 history, it still contributes important and unique details to fully understanding what Joseph saw and experienced in the grove. For example, it is in this account that Joseph described the two personages he saw as “exactly resembl[ing] each other in features, and likeness,”12 thus affirming the inseparability and corporeal nature of both the Father and the Son (cf. Doctrine and Covenants 130:22–23). For these and other reasons, Latter-day Saints are greatly benefited by Joseph’s 1842 account of his First Vision.
“Church History,” 1 March 1842 (Wentworth Letter)
(Following the standardized version here; original available here)
When about fourteen years of age, I began to reflect upon the importance of being prepared for a future state, and upon enquiring about the plan of salvation, I found that there was a great clash in religious sentiment; if I went to one society, they referred me to one plan, and another to another, each one pointing to his own particular creed as the summum bonum of perfection. Considering that all could not be right, and that God could not be the author of so much confusion, I determined to investigate the subject more fully, believing that if God had a church it would not be split up into factions, and that if he taught one society to worship one way, and administer in one set of ordinances, he would not teach another principles which were diametrically opposed. Believing the word of God, I had confidence in the declaration of James; “If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.”
I retired to a secret place in a grove and began to call upon the Lord. While fervently engaged in supplication, my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded, and I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision and saw two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features and likeness, surrounded with a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noonday. They told me that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom. And I was expressly commanded to “go not after them,” at the same time receiving a promise that the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto me.
Further Reading
Karen Lynn Davidson et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Volume 1: Joseph Smith Histories, 1832–1844 (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 489–501.
1 Karen Lynn Davidson et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Volume 1: Joseph Smith Histories, 1832–1844 (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 489.
2“Church History,”Times and Seasons 3, no. 9 (March 1, 1842): 706; cf. Davidson et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Volume 1, 492.
3 Davidson et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Volume 1, 489.
4 Davidson et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Volume 1, 491.
7 Alex D. Smith, Christian K. Heimburger, and Christopher James Blythe, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 9: December 1841–April 1842 (Salt Lake City, UT: Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2019), 177; Bruce A. Van Orden, We’ll Sing and We’ll Shout: The Life and Times of W. W. Phelps (Provo and Salt Lake City, UT: Religious Studies Center at Brigham Young University and Deseret Book. 2018), 317–318.
8 Davidson et al., eds. The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Volume 1, 491–492, 519–520; Smith, Heimburger, and Blythe, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 9, 177.
9 Allen and Welch, “Analysis of Joseph Smith’s Accounts of His First Vision,” 53.
10 Smith, Heimburger, and Blythe, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 9, 177–178. A generation later, Latter-day Saint historian B. H. Roberts blended the 1842 account with the canonical 1838 account in his retelling of the early visions of Joseph Smith. See the discussion in Steven C. Harper, First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019), 152–153, citing B. H. Roberts, “History of the Mormon Church: Chapter 5, The Early Visions of Joseph Smith,” Americana 4, no. 6 (September 1909): 610–627, esp. 616n8.
11“Latter Day Saints,” 1844; cf. Davidson et al., eds. The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Volume 1, 503–516.
The 1838 account of the First Vision is the most detailed and fleshed out of the four accounts written or dictated by Joseph Smith. It is also the one most familiar to Latter-day Saints today, owing to the fact that it is the account canonized as Joseph Smith—History found in the Pearl of Great Price. The account was part of a new history Joseph Smith began with Sidney Rigdon and George W. Robinson on April 27, 1838 in Far West, Missouri. Joseph dictated his history to Robinson until September, when James Mulholland took over as the primary scribe. Shortly thereafter, the Missouri War broke out, Joseph was imprisoned, and the history writing stalled. It wasn’t until June 10, 1839 that Joseph and Mulholland began again.1
The portion of the narrative relating the First Vision was originally dictated in April or May 1838. The original manuscript prepared by Robinson, however, is lost. Mulholland made a copy in the summer of 1839, and revisions to the narrative may have occurred at this time. This was a period of severe persecution for Joseph Smith and the Saints. Only weeks before he began writing this history, the hostilities of former friends turned apostates in Kirtland forced Joseph to move to Far West. Then, as mentioned, the history was derailed by the Missouri War and Joseph’s imprisonment in Liberty Jail.2 These hostilities were undoubtedly at the forefront of his mind as he dictated this history. Thus, he began:
Owing to the many reports which have been put in circulation by evil disposed and designing persons in relation to the rise and progress of the Church of Latter day Saints … I have been induced to write this history so as to disabuse the publick mind, and put all enquirers after truth into possession of the facts as they have transpired in relation to both myself and the Church as far as I have such facts in possession.3
As James B. Allen and John W. Welch observed, “In this context, it is no wonder that persecution, contention, competition, religious excitement, bad feelings, strife, contempt, bitterness, hatred, and rejection were recalled so vividly and stated so graphically in this 1838–39 account.”4 Steven C. Harper has also noted, “An outward observer would not likely interpret these events as intensely as [Joseph] Smith subjectively did.”5
This account also came in the wake of multiple previous attempts at writing a history of the Church’s origins, each of which had been derailed for one reason or another.6 This allowed Joseph to experiment with different styles and methods of writing before settling on the bold, autobiographical style embodied in this account. It’s clear that over the years, Joseph had deeply contemplated how he wanted to tell his story. Now, with an urgent need “to set the record straight once and for all,” Joseph was finally ready to tell his story with resolute purpose, and according to Allen and Welch, “it is likely that Joseph would more carefully consider this account than he had the earlier versions.”7
The result is an account of his experience that is more fully developed out than the earlier rehearsals. Here, Joseph puts greater emphasis on the “unusual religious excitement” around him than was mentioned in previous accounts.8 He also makes the impact that reading and pondering James 1:5 had on him more explicit in this narration than any other. With the recent persecutions of Ohio and Missouri fresh on his mind, this report is also the only one that mentions his confiding in—and being rejected by—a trusted Methodist minister, and it more poignantly elaborates on his feelings of being persecuted as a young boy. Perhaps most importantly, however, it is this account that most clearly establishes that it was both God the Father and his “beloved son,” Jesus Christ, who appeared to him.
As the canonized account, the 1838 narration of the First Vision has had the greatest influence on how Latter-day Saints understand, learn, teach, and visualize the experience Joseph had in the grove early in the spring of 1820. This account, more than any other, has shaped and defined the legacy of Joseph Smith’s First Vision.
Karen Lynn Davidson et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers—Histories, Volume 1: Joseph Smith Histories, 1832–1844 (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 192–202.
1 For background and historical context, see Karen Lynn Davidson et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Volume 1: Joseph Smith Histories, 1832–1844 (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 192–202; Dean C. Jessee, “The Earliest Documented Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” in Exploring the First Vision, ed. Samuel Alonzo Dodge and Steven C. Harper (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2012), 12–13; also published in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844, 2nd ed., ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Deseret Book, 2017), 13–15; James B. Allen and John W. Welch, “The Appearance of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith in 1820,” in Exploring the First Vision, 54–56; also published in Opening the Heavens, 50–52.
2 For more details on the events in Joseph Smith’s life in 1838, including the persecutions he faced, see Alexander L. Baugh, “Joseph Smith in Northern Missouri, 1838,” in Joseph Smith: The Prophet and Seer, ed. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Kent P. Jackson (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Religious Studies Center, 2010), 291–346.
In early November 1835, Joseph Smith was visited by a man named Robert Matthews (also known as Joshua “the Jewish minister”), a Christian preacher who converted to Judaism and began claiming that he was the reincarnated apostle Matthias.1 During their meeting the two began “talking upon the subject of religion” and the Prophet gave Matthews “a relation of the circumstances connected with the coming forth of the book of Mormon.”2 As part of this narrative, Joseph retold his First Vision experience.
As he described it, “respecting the subject of religion” Joseph was as a young man deeply “perplexed in mind.” He could not tell “who was right or who was wrong” among “the different systems taught [by] the children of men” but recognized the “first importance that [he] should be right, in matters that involved eternal consequences.” And so with faith in biblical teachings found in passages such as Matthew 7:7 and James 1:5 Joseph relayed how he “retired to the silent grove and bowd down before the Lord” to resolve his perplexity. “[I]nformation was what [he] most desired at this time,” Joseph recounted, “and with a fixed determination to obtain it, [he] called upon the Lord for the first time.” After encountering a terrifying supernatural entity which attempted to stop him from praying, Joseph described how “a pillar of fire appeared above [his] head” that “rested down upon” him and “filled [him] with joy unspeakable.” In that “pillar of flame” appeared a “personage” who was then followed by another that “appeard like unto the first.” This second personage informed Joseph that his sins had been forgiven and testified of Jesus Christ. Many angels too were present in “this first communication” that occurred when Joseph was “about 14. years old.”3
Among the other reasons for its importance, this account of the First Vision offers a glimpse into how Joseph began understanding the step-by-step unfolding of his prophetic call. As historian Steven C. Harper has recognized, “In this account Joseph cast the vision as the first in a series of events that led to the translation of the Book of Mormon.”4 Although it would take a few more years for Joseph to more fully contextualize and narrate the importance of what he called his “first communication” with Deity, it is clear from this 1835 account that he was already formulating a coherent narrative structure for how he retold his vision to inquirers.
Unlike his highly personal 1832 history, this retelling of the First Vision by the Prophet was to a total stranger who literally walked into Joseph’s house unannounced and asked about his experience.5 It is therefore understandable that “Joseph’s conversation on this occasion tended to deal with objective details, rather than intimate feelings. This account is plain, bold, and to the point.”6 What’s more, Joseph drew on biblical language and imagery to describe his vision that would have appealed to a Jewish convert such as Matthews. Terms such as “pillar of fire” used in this account evoke the Exodus narrative in the Bible that describes the Lord appearing to Israel in just such (e.g. Exodus 13:21). “[T]he withholding of any mention of a divine name in connection with the Supreme One,” together with the mention of ‘many angels in this vision,’ would have [likewise] comported with Jewish sensitivities.”7 At the same time, however, “the clear assertion of the presence of two divine beings and the unambiguous testimony that Jesus Christ is the Son of God were bold declarations” for Joseph to have made in front of his Jewish guest.8
The added detail of “many angels” being present in the vision is perhaps the most notable unique detail in this retelling. It isn’t clear precisely what the Prophet meant by this, and indeed including it in the narrative appears to have been something of an afterthought (the line is inserted interlineally in the journal). Notwithstanding, “A precedent for a visitation of Deity and angels can be seen in the account in 3 Nephi in which Jesus Christ descended to the earth to instruct His people and was followed by ‘angels descending . . . in the midst of fire’ to act as ministers (3 Ne. 17:24).” The identity of these angels “can only be guessed” since they go unnamed by Joseph. “It is not known if these celestial visitants acted as a heavenly retinue (see Rev. 5:11; 1 Ne. 1:8; Alma 36:22), served in some type of ministerial capacity, or represented the many angels who would visit Joseph during the future process of restoration.”9 What is known is that one week after his meeting with Matthews, Joseph told another inquirer (a non-Latter-day Saint named Erastus Holmes) about his “first visitation of Angels” when he was “about 14, years old.”10
The significance of this account of the First Vision was not lost on Joseph’s clerks, who had it recopied with only slight revisions into his 1834–1836 history.11 One of the clerks involved in the project “explained that the intention [of the history] was to provide a ‘faithful narration of every important item in [Joseph Smith’s] every-day-occurrences.’”12 The recopying of this account of the First Vision from Joseph’s private journal into another documentary repository among the early Latter-day Saints further signifies its importance. “Even so, [this account] remained generally unknown to Latter-day Saints until” its publication in the 1960s.13
Journal, 9–11 November 1835
(Following the standardized version here; original available here)
Being wrought up in my mind respecting the subject of religion, and looking at the different systems taught the children of men, I knew not who was right or who was wrong. And considering it of the first importance that I should be right in matters that involve eternal consequences, being thus perplexed in mind I retired to the silent grove and bowed down before the Lord, under a realizing sense that he had said (if the Bible be true), “Ask, and you shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened; seek, and you shall find,” and again, “If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not.”
Information was what I most desired at this time, and with a fixed determination to obtain it, I called upon the Lord for the first time in the place above stated. Or in other words, I made a fruitless attempt to pray; my tongue seemed to be swollen in my mouth, so that I could not utter. I heard a noise behind me, like some person walking towards me. I strove again to pray but could not. The noise of walking seemed to draw nearer. I sprung up on my feet and looked around but saw no person or thing that was calculated to produce the noise of walking.
I kneeled again. My mouth was opened and my tongue liberated, and I called on the Lord in mighty prayer. A pillar of fire appeared above my head. It presently rested down upon me and filled me with joy unspeakable. A personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame, which was spread all around and yet nothing consumed. Another personage soon appeared, like unto the first. He said unto me, “Thy sins are forgiven thee.” He testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God. And I saw many angels in this vision. I was about fourteen years old when I received this first communication.
Further Reading
Dean C. Jessee, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Richard L. Jensen, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Journals, Volume 1: 1832–1839 (Salt Lake City, UT: Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2008), 87–88.
2Journal, 1835–1836, 23; cf. Dean C. Jessee, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Richard L. Jensen, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Journals, Volume 1: 1832–1839 (Salt Lake City, UT: Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2008), 87–88.
4 Steven C. Harper, Joseph Smith’s First Vision: A Guide to the Historical Accounts (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2012), 41.
5 Joseph opens this account with the detail that “while setting in my house between the hours of nine & 10 11 this morning a man came in, and introduced himself to me.” Journal, 1835–1836, 23.
11 History, 1834–1836, 120–121; cf. Karen Lynn Davidson et al., eds. The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Volume 1: Joseph Smith Histories, 1832–1844 (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 115–116.
12 Davidson et al., eds. The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Volume 1, 26.
