![FairMormon Logo](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021_fair_logo_primary.png)
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
< Multiple accounts of the First Vision | 1832
Template:FirstVisionPortal
This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.
Critics claim that in the 1832 account of the First Vision—which is in the handwriting of Joseph Smith himself—it only says that Jesus Christ made an appearance in the wilderness; the Father is missing from the text. Since this is the earliest known written account of the First Vision story, critics presume that it provides evidence that the Prophet's story became more elaborate and impressive over time.
The theophany portion of the 1832 account does seem to indicate that only Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith. The relevant text reads as follows:
Even though the Savior is quoted as making a direct reference to the Father in this text, there is no indication in the theophany portion of it which would indicate that God the Father made an appearance on this occasion. However, critics have failed to notice a significant phrase found in the introductory remarks of the Prophet's 1832 historical narrative. There he says that this document is -
This paragraph outlines four major events of the Restoration in chronological order.
The significant phrase is, naturally, the one associated with the First Vision—"receiving the testimony from on high." When this phrase is compared with the Prophet's 1835 and 1838 accounts of the First Vision experience it becomes apparent that the 1832 phraseology corresponds with the words spoken by God the Father when He introduced His Son in the Sacred Grove.
The Father's identification of Jesus Christ as His Son was His "testimony" of Him - i.e., "THIS IS my beloved Son".
Since it can be concluded from this documentary evidence that Joseph Smith did indeed make an oblique reference to the appearance of the Father in his 1832 history the question becomes—Why did the Prophet construct the 1832 narrative in the manner that he did (so as to exclude explicit mention of the Father's appearance)? A careful analysis of the 1832 First Vision text reveals that it was deliberately constructed on the framework of many scriptural citations. The apostle Stephen's view of both the Father and the Son is clearly utilized in one section of the 1832 text but, more importantly, the Prophet told the actual theophany portion of this narrative in language that very closely corresponds to the apostle Paul's vision of Jesus Christ (Acts 26).[2] .
Paul did not report that he saw the Father alongside the Son, and so it seems that this is the reason why Joseph Smith did not explicitly mention the Father's appearance in his text. The Prophet's strong sense of connection with Paul's visionary experience is referred to by him right in his 1838 First Vision account. The context of this connection is the persecution experienced by both men for speaking publicly about a heavenly manifestation. Joseph relates in his 1838 history that he was informed by a clergyman that his vision was "all of the devil." This piece of information may help to explain why the Prophet chose to couch his first known written account in heavy biblical language and imagery. He may have hoped that by doing so his story would have a better chance of acceptance among a populace that was steeped in the content of the Bible.
It is interesting to note that the scribe for the material which directly precedes and follows after the 1832 First Vision narrative - Frederick G. Williams - never mentioned anything about Joseph Smith's story evolving over time and becoming more elaborate with the so-called 'addition' of the Father. Williams was a resident of Quincy, Illinois when the First Vision account which explicitly refers to the Father was published in Nauvoo, Illinois on 1 April 1842. It is known that Williams was with the Prophet in Nauvoo shortly before his death on 10 October 1842 but during the intervening six months there is no known objection by Frederick to the content of the printed text. Why not? Williams was the person who wrote down the words in the introductory remarks of the 1832 document that talk of Joseph Smith receiving "the testimony from on high" during the First Vision. And it is known that Frederick was accompanying four LDS missionaries who, in November 1830, were teaching the citizens of Painesville, Ohio that Joseph Smith had seen "God" personally (see the 1830 statement about seeing "God"). Williams was a member of the First Presidency of the Church on 9 November 1835 when Joseph Smith was teaching a non-Mormon that there were two personages who appeared during the First Vision (see Joseph Smith diary, 9 November 1835). Frederick probably never drew attention to a so-called 'discrepancy' between what Joseph Smith taught in 1832, 1835, 1838, and 1842 because he knew that there wasn't one; he knew that the words of the Father spoken during the vision were referred to right in the text that he had written down in 1832.
Oliver Cowdery is another person who was in a position to know if the Prophet's First Vision story had changed over time by the addition of the Father. But he never mentioned any such 'discrepancy'. Cowdery had possession of the 1832 First Vision account when he wrote and published a series of Church history letters in December 1834 and February 1835 and so he was aware of the explicit mention of Christ's appearance and also knew of the introductory remark which refers to "the testimony from on high" being delivered during this event. Cowdery became the Assisant or Associate President of the entire Church on 5 December 1834 (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1653) and thus he would have been in practically the highest office of the authority when the Prophet was teaching about one year later that two personages appeared during the First Vision (Joseph Smith diary, 9 November 1835).
Both Fredrick G. Williams and Oliver Cowdery had reason to hold animosity toward Joseph Smith and the Church since they were both excommunicated in the late 1830's. But neither of these men - even after their reinstatements into full fellowship - ever pointed to any 'creative editing' of the Prophet's story to sound more impressive and dramatic.
The Father is not mentioned as making an appearance in the theophany portion of the 1832 First Vision account because Joseph Smith patterned that part of his narrative after the vision of Jesus Christ experienced by the apostle Paul. The words spoken by the Father during His First Vision appearance are, however, referred to in the introductory paragraph of the 1832 text.
The critics have not been careful in their analysis of this early Mormon historical document.
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now