Bryan, Bo and KD talk about the multiple accounts of the First Vision and the article in the Gospel Topics series.
--
The Unveiling Mormonism podcast pulls back the curtain on Mormon history, culture and doctrine. Join us for new episodes every Monday.
Find resources to talk about these episodes at pursueGOD.org/mormonism.
Help others go "full circle" as a follower of Jesus through our 12-week Pursuit series.
Click here to learn more about how to use these resources at home, with a small group, or in a one-on-one discipleship relationship.
Got questions or want to leave a note? Email us at podcast@pursueGOD.org.
--
Find the article here.
The First Vision is one of the most pivotal events in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), regarded as the moment when Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, received a divine visitation from God the Father and Jesus Christ. This vision, which Smith claimed to have experienced in 1820 in the woods near his home in Palmyra, New York, is foundational to LDS theology, marking the beginning of the Restoration of the gospel and the establishment of the LDS Church. As such, the account of this vision is central to the faith of millions of Latter-day Saints.
In an effort to address the complexities surrounding the multiple accounts of the First Vision, the LDS Church published an article titled "The First Vision Accounts" in its Gospel Topics series. The article is part of the Church's broader effort to engage with historical scholarship, acknowledging that there are discrepancies between the various accounts Joseph Smith gave of his vision over the years. While the article seeks to harmonize these differences and present the vision as a consistent and inspired event, a closer critical examination reveals several concerns, particularly regarding its treatment of historical context, the inconsistencies between accounts, and the theological implications of these discrepancies.
The article begins by acknowledging that Joseph Smith gave several accounts of the First Vision over the years, each with varying details. This is a notable step in the Church's public engagement with historical criticism, as it is an issue that has long been raised by scholars and critics alike. The article lists the key versions of the First Vision: the 1832 account, the 1835 account (given to a man named Joshua, later written down by a scribe), the 1838 account (which is the version published in the History of the Church), and later retellings in the 1840s.
The acknowledgment of multiple accounts is an important admission, especially given that some critics have argued that the differing versions undermine the credibility of Joseph Smith’s vision. The article explains that these differences are not contradictions, but rather reflections of Joseph Smith's evolving understanding of the experience, the audience he was addressing, and his desire to emphasize certain aspects of the vision depending on the context.
While this approach offers a plausible defense for the differing accounts, the article could be seen as somewhat dismissive of the deeper implications of these discrepancies. A more robust engagement with the question of why Joseph Smith's retellings varied so widely, both in terms of content and theological emphasis, would provide a more nuanced perspective.
The article emphasizes that the differences between the accounts do not invalidate the event itself. Instead, it suggests that the variations are natural and even expected, given that Joseph Smith was recounting a profound spiritual experience over the course of several years. The article points out that the 1832 account, for example, mentions only a single divine being, while the 1835 and 1838 accounts describe both God the Father and Jesus Christ appearing to Joseph Smith. The differences in the descriptions of the vision's purpose and the timing of the event are also addressed.
However, the Church’s explanation often minimizes the significance of these discrepancies. For instance, the 1838 account, which is the most widely cited version and the one included in the Doctrine and Covenants, is markedly different in tone and detail from the earlier accounts. In this version, Joseph Smith describes being told that all existing churches were wrong, and he is directed to join none of them. In contrast, the 1832 account is more introspective, focusing primarily on Smith’s own search for forgiveness and peace. The question of why Smith’s understanding of the vision shifted so dramatically between these accounts remains largely unexplored in the article.
A deeper exploration of these variations would be valuable for those seeking to reconcile these differences with the Church’s theological narrative. Why did Joseph Smith choose to emphasize the condemnation of other churches in the 1838 version, when earlier accounts do not mention this? Why did his earlier descriptions of the vision focus more on personal spiritual longing and forgiveness, while later accounts stress the Restoration of the gospel and the rejection of existing Christian denominations?
The article makes a strong case for the idea that the differing accounts of the First Vision reflect Joseph Smith’s evolving theological understanding and his need to adapt his narrative to the needs of different audiences. It suggests that as Smith’s ministry grew, his understanding of the vision became more doctrinally developed, with the 1838 account aligning with the Church’s later teachings on the nature of God, the rejection of traditional Christian denominations, and the coming Restoration.
However, this emphasis on the theological evolution of the First Vision raises significant questions about the historical authenticity of the vision itself. If the details of the vision evolved so substantially over time, can it be said that the vision was a singular, unchanging experience? Alternatively, is it possible that Joseph Smith’s retellings were shaped by his growing theological views and the evolving context of his religious movement, rather than being a direct account of an unchanging historical event?
The article could do more to address these concerns directly. While it is understandable that Smith’s understanding of the vision would evolve as his theological framework developed, the wide discrepancies between the accounts (particularly in terms of the nature of the vision’s message and the number of divine beings involved) invite a critical reflection on how the vision may have been shaped by Smith’s later doctrinal developments. To what extent was the vision interpreted through the lens of later LDS teachings, such as the doctrine of the Godhead, which was clarified in the 1830s and 1840s?
For modern Latter-day Saints, the First Vision is a foundational event that underpins their belief in the divine restoration of the gospel. The account of the vision provides theological legitimacy for the unique doctrines of the LDS Church, particularly the nature of God and the rejection of traditional Christian teachings. However, the theological significance of the First Vision rests on the assumption that the vision was a consistent and divinely inspired event.
The article’s attempts to harmonize the various accounts may be comforting to some members of the LDS Church, but they do not fully address the theological tension that arises from the inconsistencies between the accounts. If the vision was truly a divine revelation, why did Joseph Smith present such different versions of it? Can modern believers continue to rely on the vision as a historically accurate event, or should they focus more on its theological and symbolic meaning?
The LDS Church's article "The First Vision Accounts" represents a significant step forward in acknowledging the historical complexities of the First Vision and the discrepancies between Joseph Smith's various retellings of the event. It is a commendable effort to engage with historical criticism and present a faith-based explanation for the differences between the accounts. However, the article falls short in addressing some of the deeper theological and historical questions raised by these inconsistencies.
While the Church’s explanation that the differences reflect Joseph Smith’s evolving understanding of the vision may provide a satisfactory answer for many believers, it does not fully address the implications of these differences for the historical authenticity of the vision. A more comprehensive exploration of the cultural and religious context of Joseph Smith’s time, as well as a deeper reflection on the theological consequences of the variations in the accounts, would provide a more nuanced and rigorous response to the challenges posed by modern scholarship.
Ultimately, for those who seek a deeper reconciliation between faith and history, the article leaves several important questions unanswered. Nevertheless, it is an important contribution to the ongoing dialogue between history, theology, and the LDS community’s understanding of its foundational narrative.