The 1832 Account of the First Vision - Criticism 1

Critics of the LDS Church often focus on the pivotal event in Mormon history, the First Vision. The mostly commonly known version is called the 1838 version, the one found in the Pearl of Great Price. This version seems to be the one that draws the most criticism - we will address about a dozen specific charges about differences between the 1832 and 1838 versions.

The first charge that often arises is that the 1832 account of the First Vision—which is in the handwriting of Joseph Smith—only says that the Savior appeared to the Prophet; the Father is missing. Since this is the earliest known account critics believe this is evidence that the story evolved and became more elaborate over time. The relevant text (in its original form) reads as follows:

"a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day c[a]me down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud in the glory of my Father."

The critics have, however, failed to notice a very significant phrase located in the introductory paragraph of the Prophet's historical narrative. There he indicates that the 1832 document is:

"A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr. an account of his marvilous experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Ch[r]ist the son of the living God of whom he beareth record and also an account of the rise of the church of Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brough [it] forth and established [it] by his hand he receiving the testamony from on high secondly the ministering of Angels thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel—<—the Law and commandments as they were given unto him—>and the ordinencs, forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God."

Did the Prophet refer to the Father in his phrase "receiving the testimony from on high"? There is evidence that he believed this phraseology to mean exactly that. But that is not my major point. It is an "enforced either/or" logical fallacy to conclude that unless one explicitly lists all major details in all versions of the story then they must be lying. Joseph made an admittedly vague reference to the Father in this account; choosing instead to focus on the message given by the Son. Is this unlearned man less than a perfect witness - yes. But that is not evidence of lying. Lying is found in contradictions. There are no contradictions here.

PS For individuals troubled by the spelling in the Prophet's account it is important to note that the standardization of spelling had not yet occurred in the Prophet's lifetime. Everyone wrote phonetically. In our day it gives the appearance of ignorance but that is not accurate nor kind. No standard for spelling had yet been invented.