Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unmasked/Chapter 3

< Back to FAIR Answers Index

Response to claims made in "Chapter 3: The Making of a Religion"

Chapter 2: The Marketing of an Image

A FAIR Analysis of: Mormonism Unmasked A work by author: R. Philip Roberts

Chapter 4: Polytheism Reborn

Response to claim: 27 - Joseph Smith: "I have more to boast of than ever any man had"

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

A quote from Joseph Smith is provided:

I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.

Author's sources: History of the Church

FAIR's Response

< Back to FAIR Answers Index

V

Articles about Joseph Smith

Life and Character	Status in Latter-day Saint belief Joseph's trustworthiness Money digging Folk magic or the occult The Word of Wisdom Alleged narcissism
Youth	Joseph Smith's family as trustworthy and hard-working Education Use of seer stones as a youth The Hurlbut affidavits Joseph Smith's 1826 trial
Revelations and the Church	Witness of Jesus Christ First Vision Book of Mormon Joseph Smith's inspired revision of the Bible (JST) The restoration of the priesthood Personages who appeared to Joseph Smith Production of the Book of Abraham Kinderhook Plates
Prophetic Statements	The U.S. Civil War Rocky Mountain prophecy The White Horse prophecy Alleged false prophecies of Joseph Smith Joseph Smith and Old Testament practices
Society	Legal issues 1826 trial Creation of the Kirtland Safety Society Failure of the Kirtland Safety Society Campaign for President of the United States
Plural marriage (polygamy)	Plural marriage or polygamy Polygamy navigator Plural wives of Joseph Smith
Death	The Nauvoo Expositor Events surrounding the death of Joseph Smith Firing a gun at Carthage Jail Qualification as a martyr 1844 Succession to Joseph Smith

Was Joseph Smith ego-maniacal, proud, and narcissistic?

Joseph Smith is quoted as saying such things as:

• "I am learned, and know more than all the world put together."
• "I combat the errors of ages; I meet the violence of mobs; I cope with illegal proceedings from executive authority; I cut the Gordian knot of powers, and I solve mathematical problems of universities, with truth . . . diamond truth; and God is my ‘right hand man.’"

These quotes are used to portray Joseph as ego-maniacal, proud, and narcissistic.

To paraphrase G. D. Smith, small wonder, then, that this Joseph—the one revealed by the documents—decided to run for the presidency. The decision was natural since the Saints felt no candidate was worthy of their support—though they knew that a vote for Joseph could well be "throw[ing] away our votes." Joseph’s campaign was "a gesture," though one he took seriously. Experienced students of Mormon history will know this; G. D. Smith evidently counts on his audience not knowing.

G. D. Smith writes that "in defending his theology [during the King Follett discourse], Smith proclaimed, ‘I am learned, and know more than all the world put together.’" The period ending the sentence would imply that this completed his thought—and so it appears in the History of the Church. If the three published versions of the original talk are consulted, However, they each demonstrate that the sentiment may have been quite different:

Now, I ask all the learned men who hear me, why the learned doctors who are preaching salvation say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. They account it blasphemy to contradict the idea. If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. The reason is that they are unlearned but I am learned and know more than all the world put together—the Holy Ghost does, anyhow. If the Holy Ghost in me comprehends more than all the world, I will associate myself with it.

In the History of the Church version, the statement about the Holy Ghost is placed in its own sentence. This allows G. D. Smith to exclude it with no ellipsis and portray Joseph as decidedly more arrogant than he was. Daniel C. Peterson’s remark is telling: "Amusing, isn’t it, . . . that the very same people who vehemently reject the . . . History of the Church as an unreliable source when it seems to support the Latter-day Saint position clutch it to their bosoms as an unparalleled historical treasure when they think they can use it as a weapon against the alleged errors of Mormonism."

Letter taken from context

Critics fail, then, to provide the context for these remarks, some of which are taken from an exchange which Joseph had with newspaperman James Arlington Bennet. For example, G.D. Smith quotes the phrases above and then editorializes: "With such a self-image, it is not surprising that he also aspired to the highest office in the land: the presidency of the United States." Here again, he serves his readers poorly. He neglects to tell us that Joseph’s remark comes from a somewhat tongue-in-cheek exchange with James Bennet, who had been baptized in the East but immediately wrote Joseph to disclaim his "glorious frolic in the clear blue ocean; for most assuredly a frolic it was, without a moment’s reflection or consideration."

James Bennet's original letter

Bennet went on to praise Joseph in an exaggerated, humorous style: "As you have proved yourself to be a philosophical divine . . . [it] point[s] you out as the most extraordinary man of the present age." "But," cautioned Bennet,

my mind is of so mathematical and philosophical a cast, that the divinity of Moses makes no impression on me, and you will not be offended when I say that I rate you higher as a legislator than I do Moses. . . . I cannot, however, say but you are both right, it being out of the power of man to prove you wrong. It is no mathematical problem, and can therefore get no mathematical solution (italics added)

Joseph’s claim that his religious witness can "solve mathematical problems of universities" is thus a playful return shot at Bennet, who has claimed a "so mathematical" mind that cannot decide about Joseph’s truth claims since they admit of "no mathematical solution." G. D. Smith may not get the joke, but he ought to at least let us know that there is one being told.

Bennet continued by suggesting that he need not have religious convictions to support Joseph, adding slyly that "you know Mahomet had his ‘right hand man.’" Joseph’s reply that God is his right-hand man is again a riposte to Bennet and follows Joseph’s half-serious gibe that "your good wishes to go ahead, coupled with Mahomet and a right hand man, are rather more vain than virtuous. Why, sir, Cæsar had his right hand Brutus, who was his left hand assassin." Joseph here pauses, and we can almost see him grin before adding: "Not, however, applying the allusion to you."

Bennet had also offered Joseph a carving of "your head on a beautiful cornelian stone, as your private seal, which will be set in gold to your order, and sent to you. It will be a gem, and just what you want. . . . The expense of this seal, set in gold, will be about $40; and [the maker] assures me that if he were not so poor a man, he would present it to you free. You can, however, accept it or not."

Joseph does not let this rhetorical opportunity go by, telling Bennet that "facts, like diamonds, not only cut glass, but they are the most precious jewels on earth. . . . As to the private seal you mention, if sent to me, I shall receive it with the gratitude of a servant of God, and pray that the donor may receive a reward in the resurrection of the just." Joseph’s concluding remark about the necessity of "truth—diamond-hard truth" plays on this same association with the proffered precious stone.

The key point of Bennet’s letter, after the sardonic preliminaries, was an invitation to use untruth for political gain—hence Joseph’s insistence on "diamond-hard truth." Bennet closed his letter by asking to be privately relieved of his honorary commission with the Nauvoo Legion, noting that

I may yet run for a high office in your state, when you would be sure of my best services in your behalf; therefore, a known connection with you would be against our mutual interest. It can be shown that a commission in the Legion was a Herald hoax, coined for the fun of it by me, as it is not believed even now by the public. In short, I expect to be yet, through your influence, governor of the State of Illinois.

Bennet hoped to use Joseph without embracing his religious pretensions and was bold enough to say so. However, Joseph was not as cynical and malleable as the Easterner hoped, for the Prophet then insisted at length on the impropriety of using "the dignity and honor I received from heaven, to boost a man into [political] power," since "the wicked and unprincipled . . . would seize the opportunity to [harden] the hearts of the nation against me for dabbling at a sly game in politics."

Joseph’s fear in relation to politics is that to support the unworthy would be to corrupt the mission he has been given. "Shall I," continued Joseph rhetorically, ". . . turn to be a Judas? Shall I, who have heard the voice of God, and communed with angels, and spake as moved by the Holy Ghost for the renewal of the everlasting covenant, and for the gathering of Israel in the last days,—shall I worm myself into a political hypocrite?" Rather, Joseph hoped that "the whole earth shall bear me witness that I, like the towering rock in the midst of the ocean, which has withstood the mighty surges of the warring waves for centuries, am impregnable, and am a faithful friend to virtue, and a fearless foe to vice."

It is at this point that he makes the statement quoted by G. D. Smith—a nice rhetorical summation of the word games he and Bennet were playing and a jovial but direct rejection of Bennet’s politically cynical offer—but hardly evidence of someone with a grandiose self-image.

Was Joseph Smith prone to boasting?

Joseph Smith is reported as saying:

I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." (History of the Church, 6:408–409. Volume 6 link

Joseph's quote, if accurate, is taken out of context

Assuming that the quote is accurate in History of the Church, it is evident that Joseph's quote is taken out of context. What was Joseph's intent, and why did he use this approach? As it turns out, he was drawing from the Bible and applying its lessons to his own situation. In the original context, Joseph was facing intense persecution by many people, including some he had previously considered to be his friends. The statement about "boasting" was supposedly made about a month before he was killed. He made it after reading 2 Corinthians 11: to the congregation. Note the following statement by Paul, in this scripture:

Paul: "let no one think me foolish; but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little"

Paul said:

Again I say, let no one think me foolish; but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little. That which I am speaking, I am not speaking it as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. For you, being so wise, bear the foolish gladly. (2 Corinthians 11:16-19, NASB)

Paul then launches into a literary tirade where he claims many things to make himself look the fool, to contrast himself with those who the Corinthians were listening to for their words of salvation, instead of to him. His words were meant to compare and contrast what the Saints at Corinth were doing against what he was offering.

Do the critics dismiss the words of Paul and deny his calling as an Apostle because he used such a literary approach that included boasting? No, they do not. Yet, they dismiss Joseph Smith when it is clear by his own statements, in context, that he engaged in the exact same literary approach. Consider the words of Joseph right after reading this chapter of Paul's to the congregation:

My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did, I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies are no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.

Joseph then makes the statements that the critics attack, in the same way that Paul made outrageous "boasts" to contrast his position with the position of those who the Corinthians were starting to listen to. Paul starts the next chapter of 2 Corinthians with the statement "boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable." So, it would appear that Paul recognizes the necessity of boasting at times against the wicked and hard-hearted (though it may do little good, being unprofitable), yet the critics do not allow Joseph to follow Paul's advice and, of necessity, boast at times.

Perhaps the critics are unaware of Paul's advice? Or perhaps they apply a double standard where Paul is allowed such literary and rhetorical license, but Joseph is not?

Such double standards are, sadly, the stock-in-trade of sectarian anti-Mormonism.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 171 epigraph, 542n1 (HB) 540n1 (PB) ( Index of claims ) Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 374. ( Index of claims ) Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised) (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), 182. ( Index of claims ) Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), Chapter 17. ( Index of claims ) Search for the Truth DVD Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 460.( Index of claims )

Did Joseph Smith believe that he was better than Jesus Christ?

The Hurlbut affidavits and claim that Joseph thought he was "better than Jesus Christ".

Summary: The source of this claim is the hostile Hulrbut affidavits, one of the first anti-Mormon works. Unsurprisingly, this charge is not credible.

Consider the following excerpt from a letter Joseph wrote to his wife Emma:

I will try to be contented with my lot, knowing that God is my friend. In him I shall find comfort. I have given my life into his hands. I am prepared to go at his call. I desire to be with Christ. I count not my life dear to me [except] to do his will.

These are not the words of a man who believed himself to be better than Christ. Joseph loved Christ and throughout his life strove to follow him. These words written in private to his wife demonstrate that Joseph was not so prideful as to think himself better than Christ. Consider also the following statement, made in public, by Joseph Smith:

I do not think there have been many good men on the earth since the days of Adam; but there was one good man and his name was Jesus. Many persons think a prophet must be a great deal better than anybody else....I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.

Both in private and in public Joseph Smith demonstrated his humility before the Lord.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 171, epigraph ( Index of claims ) Sally Denton, American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, (Secker & Warburg, 2003), 25. George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "...but we called it celestial marriage" (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), 225–226. ( Index of claims , (Detailed book review))

Did Joseph Smith say that he would be a "second Muhammad," threatening to spread his beliefs with the sword?

The statement which Joseph is charged with making did not accord at all with how he had his followers behave

Some have argued that Joseph may have said something like this, but was doing so for rhetorical effect to frighten the Missourians into leaving the Saints alone. But, it is by no means certain that he said it at all. Some who made the claims returned to the Church, and other sources were motivated by hostility and a desire to portray the Saints as a military and religious threat.

This claim came from Thomas B. Marsh after he left the Church

The source of this claim is from Thomas B. Marsh, an apostate former president of the Quorum of the Twelve. In 1838, Marsh swore an affidavit in which he claimed to have heard Joseph Smith say:

he would yet tread down his enemies, and walk over their dead bodies; and if he was not let alone, he would be a second Mohammed to this generation, and that it would be one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean; that like Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was, 'the Alcoran or the Sword,' so should it be eventually with us, 'Joseph Smith or the Sword.'

Green and Goldrup: "this threat was quite probably a mere fabrication by the disgruntled Marsh"

Arnold Green and Lawrence Goldrup noted in 1971 that "this threat was quite probably a mere fabrication by the disgruntled Marsh," and pointed out Orson Hyde (who was also disaffected at the time) later repented and returned, indicating that parts of the affidavit had been invented by Marsh. Marsh himself was later to repent and return to the Church, which casts further doubt on his story.

The tale was also repeated by George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, George Walter, and partially by Abner Scovil. Joseph Smith's journal for the period notes:

some excitement was raised in the adjoining Counties, that is Ray & Clay, against us, in consequence of the suden departure of these wicked character[s], of the apostates from this Church, into that vicinity reporting false stories, and statements, but when they [the Missourians] come to hear the other side of the question their feeling[s] were all allayed upon that subject especially.

It is, then, by no means certain that Joseph made this statement—the witnesses are all hostile, and clearly intended to frighten the Missourians

Joseph was under enormous pressure to defend the Saints against the repeated actions of mobbers. As historian Marvin Hill notes,

the actual response to belligerence when it occurred was much more restrained. Although the elders did confiscate property and burn houses, their attacks were generally aimed at specific enemies. Mormons had neither the inclination nor means to wage a general war of extermination against all mobbers, despite menacing talk. The only fatalities occurred in the skirmish with Bogart, where the elders got the worst of the fight. Had the prophet been intent on waging total war, it is unlikely he would have allowed Rigdon to issue his 4th of July warning, which only put the Missourians on guard.

Did Joseph Smith run for President because he had delusions of grandeur?

Summary: Joseph Smith was sincere in his political principles, which seem to have been generally well-received and were well thought out. There is little evidence, however, that Joseph expected to win his political contest. Joseph had ample experience with persecution and hatred throughout his prophetic career; it seems unlikely that he would have expected to overcome such animus and successfully be elected president.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Rev. Henry Caswall, The City of the Mormons: Or, Three Days at Nauvoo in 1842 (London: Rivington, 1842), 77. Rev. Edmund Clay, Tract # 2: “The Book of Mormon, Its History, and an Analysis of its Contents (1851), reprinted in collection: Clay, The Doctrines and Practices of ‘The Mormons’ and the Immoral Character of their Prophet Joseph Smith, Delineated from Authentic Sources (London: Wertheim & Macintosh; Leamington: J. Glover, 1853), 22. Sally Denton, American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, (Secker & Warburg, 2003), 20. James H. Hunt, Mormonism: Embracing the Origin, Rise and Progress of the Sect (St. Louis: Ustick and Davies, 1844), v. off-site September Dawn (film), written by Carole Whang Schutter. William Sparrow Simpson, Mormonism: Its History, Doctrines and Practices (London: A. M. Pigott, 1853), 33.

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

Response to claim: 28 - “During this time, Joseph and his father became increasingly engaged in folk magic, using magical seer stones and divining rods to look for buried treasure and lost items”

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states, “During this time, Joseph and his father became increasingly engaged in folk magic, using magical seer stones and divining rods to look for buried treasure and lost items.”

Author's sources: Fawn M. Brodie, ‘’No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet’’ (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), 6-33. See also Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ‘’Mormonism-Shadow and Reality?’’ (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987) 32-49.

FAIR's Response

Practitioner of occultism and magic?

Summary: It is claimed that Joseph Smith's spiritual experiences began as products of "magic," the "occult," or "treasure seeking," and that only later did Joseph describe his experiences in Christian, religious terms: speaking of God, angels, and prophethood. Joseph Smith and his followers undoubtedly believed in supernatural power. And, they may have had some ideas about how to access that power that now strike us as inaccurate and even strange. This is not surprising, given the two centuries and massive scientific advances which separate our culture from theirs. However, there is no evidence that Joseph and others considered these things to be "magic," or the "occult," nor did they consider "magic" or the "occult" to be positive things.

Response to claim: 28 - “Due to a tremendous revival in his neighborhood in 1820, Joseph Smith became concerned about which church he should join”

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states, “Due to a tremendous revival in his neighborhood in 1820, Joseph Smith became concerned about which church he should join.”

Author's sources: Not provided

FAIR's Response

< Back to FAIR Answers Index

V

Articles about Joseph Smith's First Vision

Accounts	Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision Multiple accounts of the First Vision Differences in First Vision accounts
Historical context	Events leading to the First Vision Events after the First Vision
Doctrinal impact	The First Vision and doctrine Seldom taught before 1877?

Video published by Doctrine and Covenants Central.

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

Is there evidence that the Smith family was in the Palmyra area in 1820?

It has been claimed that there is no evidence that the Smith family was in the Palmyra area in 1820 for the religious excitement and First Vision

It is claimed that there are discrepancies in Joseph's account of his family's early history, which make his 1820 and subsequent revelations impossible. Specifically, it has been claimed that there is no evidence that the Smith family was in the Palmyra area in 1820 for the religious excitement and First Vision which Joseph reported.

Road tax records indicate that Joseph Smith, Sr. was in Palmyra Road District #26 from 1817 till 1822

Documentary evidence came to light in 1970 to show that the Smiths were living in a log cabin within the Palmyra borders as late as April 1822. This discovery led Donald Enders, of the Church’s Historical Department, to do an in-depth study of this matter and publish an article in the Church’s Ensign magazine that concluded "Although the farm was located on the Manchester side of the Palmyra-Manchester township line, the Smith’s inadvertently built their cabin on the Palmyra side" on property owned by someone else.

Road tax records that the LDS Genealogical Department copied indicates Joseph Smith, Sr. was in Palmyra Road District #26 from 1817 till 1822. Since the road tax records were done in April, this indicates that Father Smith did not arrive in Palmyra to stay until after April 1816 and yet before April 1817.

The U.S. Census Bureau listed the Smiths in Farmington (now Manchester) in 1820

The U.S. Census Bureau listed the Smiths in Farmington (now Manchester) in 1820. The Smith farm, clearing the land and a log house, all supported evidence that the Smiths, and most everyone else, considered themselves in Manchester, even though they technically lived about 59 feet off their property. Legal U.S. documents now considered the Smiths in Farmington (later called Manchester) even though, technically, the log house was 59 feet away on the Palmyra side of the line.

The log house that everyone says they built in 1818 or 1819 was inadvertently built on the wrong side of the Farmington (Manchester)-Palmyra line

Moving to Manchester, it seems probable that the Smiths did not formally move to the new frame house on the east side of Stafford Road until after the winter of 1822. The log house that everyone says they built in 1818 or 1819 was inadvertently built on the wrong side of the Farmington (Manchester)-Palmyra line. Such an "accident" is entirely possible in a day when boundary lines may not have been well established. This would mean that the Smith family did not actually dwell on the Manchester side of the line until after November of 1822, when according to Mother Smith, "the frame was raised, and all the materials necessary for its [their frame house] speedy completion were procured." "An unidentifiable newspaper article on microfilm at Brigham Young University library" mentions that after some time, it was discovered that the cabin originally built by the Smiths was not on the land originally contracted by them. Arrangements were then made with Samuel Jennings to purchase the land on which the log cabin was erected.

Finding the Smiths not on their property by just under 60 feet, the Palmyra road tax overseers recorded the Smiths on their road tax lists until 1822

Finding the Smiths not on their property by just under 60 feet, the Palmyra road tax overseers recorded the Smiths on their road tax lists until 1822 when the Smiths were able to raise the frame of a larger house (this time, on their property), move into the house, and work to complete the house after the move. This move occurred before the tax liens were completed in 1823. The tax liens on the property increased $300 to reflect the move. The move to the log house by the Smiths in 1818 was considered a move to Manchester by Joseph Jr., in his history, for it was a move to their farm where he was going to labor for many years to come. An imaginary line separated them from physically being in Manchester.

Joseph Smith was living in the area at the right time to be near the Sacred Grove where God and His Son appeared to him

Contemporary eyewitnesses, who were critical of Joseph Smith, do indeed verify that the Smiths were in the area where Joseph said they were. Modern critics now try to claim that he was not there. The evidence proves these new critics wrong.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record (Salt Lake City, Utah: Smith Research Associates [distributed by Signature Books], 1994), 7-8. Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?, 5th edition, (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 143–162-D. MormonThink.com website (as of 5 May 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm Wesley P. Walters, “Joseph’s First Vision Story Undermined,” The Quarterly Journal of Watchman Fellowship (January–March 1988), 4. Wesley P. Walters, Joseph Smith’s Move to Palmyra and Manchester, NY (A Preliminary Report) (unpublished, 1990). Wesley P. Walters, "New Light on Mormon Origins From the Palmyra Revival," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 4 no. 1 (Spring 1969), 60–81. Wikipedia article "First Vision"–Primary editors: COgden and John Foxe, with additional contributions by multiple editors. ( FAIR's Analysis of this Wikipedia article)

What critical claims are related to Joseph Smith becoming "partial to the Methodist sect" near the time of the First Vision?

It is claimed that Joseph didn't become "partial to the Methodist sect" until at least 1823, after Alvin's death, or as late as 1838, rather than in 1820 as he claimed in his 1838 First Vision account

The Wikipedia article "First Vision" (as of May 18, 2009) contains the assertion:

While [Joseph] almost certainly never formally joined the Methodist church, he did associate himself with the Methodists eight years after he said he had been instructed by God not to join any established denomination.

In John A. Matzko, "The Encounter of Young Joseph Smith with Presbyterianism," Dialogue 40/3 (2007): 71., the author claims:

Although Joseph later wrote that his "Father’s family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith,"—rather than emphasizing his mother’s membership—the death of Alvin and the arrival of Stockton seem to have driven both Smith and his father (who glided easily between religious skepticism and folk mysticism) farther from the Presbyterian church and its Calvinistic doctrine. It was probably during this period that Joseph "became partial to the Methodist sect," whose opposition to Reformed doctrine was notorious.

It is entirely reasonable to conclude that Joseph was telling the truth when he said that he became "partial to the Methodist sect" in 1820. Critics who attempt to place this event later in Joseph's life do so in order to discredit the story of the First Vision.

When did Joseph Smith become "partial to the Methodist sect?"

A contemporary account places the date in the 1819-1820 timeframe

The following is taken from a hostile source, Orsamus Turner (Orsamus Turner, Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase (Buffalo 1849), p. 429):

And a most unpromising recipient of such a trust was this same Joseph Smith, Jr., afterwards Jo Smith." He was lounging, idle, (not to say vicious,) and possessed of less than ordinary intellect. The author's own recollections of him are distinct. He used to come into the village of Palmyra, with little jags of wood, from his back-woods home; sometimes patronizing a village grocery too freely; sometimes finding an odd job to do about the store of Seymour Scovell; and once a week he would stroll into the office of the old Palmyra Register for his father's paper. How impious in us young "dare devils" *

Turner then inserts a footnote which dates this to 1819-1820:

* Here the author remembers to have first seen the family, in the winter of '19, and '20, in a rude log house, with but a small spot of underbrush around it.

Turner continues:

...to once in a while blacken the face of the then meddling, inquisitive lounger—but afterwards prophet—with the old-fashioned balls, when he used to put himself in the way of the working of the old-fashioned Ramage press! The editor of the Cultivator at Albany—esteemed as he may justly consider himself for his subsequent enterprise and usefulness—may think of it with contrition and repentance, that he once helped thus to disfigure the face of a prophet, and, remotely, the founder of a state.

But Joseph had a little ambition, and some very laudable aspirations; the mother's intellect occasionally shone out in him feebly, especially when he used to help us to solve some portentous questions of moral or political ethics, in our juvenile debating club, which we moved down to the old red school-house on Durfee street, to get rid of the annoyance of critics that used to drop in upon us in the village; amid, subsequently, after catching a spark of Methodism in the camp-meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road, he was a very passable exhorter in evening meetings.

It is also known that the Methodists held at least one camp meeting in the Palmyra area in mid-1820, prior to their purchase of the property on Vienna Road.

Does this mean Joseph became a Methodist?

Turner's source is not talking about Joseph Smith acting as an exhorter in evening meetings of the Methodist denomination, but rather the evening meetings spoken of were the gatherings of the juvenile debate club. This conclusion is supported by a newspaper article in the Western Farmer which announced that the Palmyra debate club would begin meeting in the local schoolhouse on 25 January 1822. We learn from firsthand witnesses that children attended school in Palmyra during the winter months and through the end of March. Since school was in session during the same time period when the debate club was meeting it would not be possible for them occupy the same building at the same time. Therefore, the debate club would have to meet at the schoolhouse during evening hours.

It should also be noted that no critic or advocate of this theory has ever bothered to explain just how Joseph Smith became a Methodist exhorter without first becoming a Methodist. And remember, Pomeroy Tucker stated quite clearly in his book that even though Joseph attended Methodist meetings he did not convert to that faith.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Wikipedia article "First Vision"–Primary editors: COgden and John Foxe, with additional contributions by multiple editors. ( FAIR's Analysis of this Wikipedia article) John A. Matzko, "The Encounter of Young Joseph Smith with Presbyterianism," Dialogue 40/3 (2007): 71.

When did the Methodists acquire property near Palmyra to hold their camp meetings?

The Methodists' acquisition of property on Vienna Road in July 1821

Some wish to discount the story of the First Vision by asserting that Joseph's claim that the "unusual excitement" about religion that "commenced with the Methodists" could not have occurred. Specifically, it is claimed that Methodist camp meetings would not have occurred until after July 1821, since the Methodists did not acquire property in the area until that time.

The Wikipedia article "First Vision" (as of May 18, 2009) contained the unsupported assertion in a footnote (the assertion that this was Joseph's "first dabble with Methodism" has since been removed):

Bushman, 69-70. The Methodists did not acquire property on the Vienna Road until July 1821, so it is likely that Smith's first dabble with Methodism occurred during the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra.

The Bushman reference (Rough Stone Rolling) states nothing about the Methodists' acquisition of property, nor does it claim that Joseph's "first dabble" with Methodism occurred during the 1824 revival. The statement was simply asserted by the editor of the wiki article. (Note: Sometime prior to September 2009, another Wikipedia editor has since replaced the unsupported assertion above with the citation by Dr. Matzko below).

Matzko makes the same assertion regarding the property on Vienna Road, however, he backs up it with a citation. According to Matzko:

Since the Methodists did not acquire property on the Vienna Road until July 1821, the camp meetings were almost certainly held after that date. [citing Wesley Walters, "A Reply to Dr. Bushman," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 4, no. 1 (Spring 1969): 99.]

The Methodists were already holding "camp meetings" in 1820

In contrast to the Wikipedia article, however, Matzko does provide a balancing reference to the 1820 Methodist camp meeting:

D. Michael Quinn argues that, on the contrary, a Methodist camp meeting of 1820 can be fairly interpreted as the religious revival to which Joseph Smith refers and that Methodists typically only asked permission to use property for camp meetings rather than purchase the land.palm

One need not refer to Quinn, however, to demonstrate that at least one Methodist camp meeting took play near Palymra in 1820. The Palymra Register notes the occurrence of a Methodist camp meeting in the area in June 1820. From the Palmyra Register June 28, 1820:

Effects of Drunkenness.—DIED at the house of Mr. Robert M'Collum, in this town, on the 26th inst. James Couser, aged about forty years. The deceased, we are informed, arrived at Mr. M'Collum's house the evening preceding, from a camp-meeting which was held in this vicinity, in a state of intoxication. He with his companion who was also in the same debasing condition, called for supper, which was granted. They both stayed all night—called for breakfast next morning—when notified that it was ready, the deceased was found wrestling with his companion, whom he flung with the greatest ease,—he suddenly sunk down upon a bench,—was taken with an epileptic fit, and immediately expires.—It is supposed he obtained his liquor, which was no doubt the cause of his death, at the Camp-ground, where, it is a notorious fact, the intemperate, the lewd and dissolute part of the community too frequently resort for no better object, than to gratify their base propensities.

We find in the subsequent issue that the Methodist's objected to the paper's implication of what happened at their camp meeting, and the Register published something of a retraction. From the Palmyra Register July 5, 1820:

"Plain Truth" is received. By this communication, as well as by the remarks of some of our neighbors who belong to the Society of Methodists, we perceive that our remarks accompanying the notice of the unhappy death of James Couser, contained in our last, have not been correctly understood. "Plain truth" says, we committed "an error in point of fact," in saying the Couser "obtained his liquor at the camp-ground." By this expression we did not mean to insinuate, that he obtained it within the enclosure of their place of worship, or that he procured it of them, but at the grog-shops that were established at, or near if you please, their camp-ground. It was far from our intention to charge the Methodists with retailing ardent spirits while professedly met for worship of their God. Neither did we intend to implicate them by saying that "the intemperate, the dissolute, &c. resort to their meetings."—And if so we have been understood by any one of that society, we assure them they have altogether mistaken our meaning.

The Methodists were clearly holding camp meeting prior to their acquisition of property on Vienna road in 1821

• The Palmya Register clearly records that the Methodist's were holding a camp meeting in June 1820. This contradicts the assertion that "Since the Methodists did not acquire property on the Vienna Road until July 1821, the camp meetings were almost certainly held after that date."
• The newspaper did not report on this meeting directly—the camp meeting only became notable when a complaint was made by the Methodists regarding the association of the meeting with the death of a drunken man. This contradicts the critics' assertion that the absence of mention of a camp meeting or "revival" in the local newspaper means that one never occurred.
• If the meetings were common then they were not news—they were only reported when something unusual happened, like a death. This suggests that not only were Methodists meeting locally in 1820 (something proven by the Palmyra Register account), but such meetings were probably a frequent occurrence.

Did Joseph Smith join the Methodists as an "exhorter" years after being told not to join another church during the First Vision?

Joseph was not a "licensed exhorter" for the Methodists, but instead participated in a "juvenile debating club"

Although the Palmyra Register does not specify the location of the Methodist camp meeting in 1820, we do have evidence that meetings were indeed occurring on Vienna Road. John Matzko cites Orsamus Turner,

At some point between 1821 and 1829, Smith served as "a very passable exhorter" at Methodist camp meetings "away down in the woods, on the Vienna Road."

It should be noted that Matzko's assertion that this occurred "between 1821 and 1829" is not supported by the source, since Turner never specifies the timeframe during which Joseph acted as an "exhorter." Despite the fact that Turner is a hostile source , the full quote does contain some important additional information,

But Joseph had a little ambition, and some very laudable aspirations; the mother's intellect occasionally shone out in him feebly, especially when he used to help us to solve some portentous questions of moral or political ethics, in our juvenile debating club, which we moved down to the old red school-house on Durfee street, to get rid of the annoyance of critics that used to drop in upon us in the village; amid, subsequently, after catching a spark of Methodism in the camp-meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road, he was a very passable exhorter in evening meetings.

Joseph could not have been a "licensed exhorter" without being a member of the Methodist Church

This quote presents critics with a dilemma (as can be seen in the Wikipedia article "First Vision"). Critics wish to demonstrate the Joseph was associated with the Methodists after being instructed during the First Vision not to join any church. They attempt to do this by minimizing the mention of a "debate club" and instead imply that Joseph was a formal "exhorter" in Methodist meetings. It is noteworthy, however, that even critic Dan Vogel states that Joseph "could not have been a licensed exhorter since membership was a prerequisite."

This is consistent with Joseph Smith's own history, in which he stated that he became "partial to the Methodist sect" and that he "felt some desire to be united with them"

Joseph Smith:

During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

John A. Matzko, "The Encounter of Young Joseph Smith with Presbyterianism," Dialogue 40/3 (2007): 78. MormonThink.com website (as of 5 May 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm Wikipedia article "First Vision"–Primary editors: COgden and John Foxe, with additional contributions by multiple editors. ( FAIR's Analysis of this Wikipedia article)

When was Lucy Mack Smith baptized as a Presbyterian?

Richard Bushman: "In recounting her baptism around 1803, Lucy Smith by implication suggested a date for her membership in the Presbyterian church in Palmyra"

Lucy Mack Smith recorded in her history that she sought out baptism sometime around 1803, without formally joining any Church at that time. The Reverend Wesley Walters attempts to place Lucy's association with the Presbyterians at 1824, to coincide with the formal 1824 revival. In 1987, Richard Bushman summarized the debates about Lucy's Presbyterianism to that point:

In recounting her baptism around 1803, Lucy Smith by implication suggested a date for her membership in the Presbyterian church in Palmyra. She had searched for a minister who would baptize her without the requirement of commitment to one church. She found such a man, who left her "free in regard to joining any religious denomination." After this, she says, "I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance; after which I continued to read the Bible as formerly until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year." Biographical Sketches, pp. 48-49. Alvin was twenty-two in 1820. Unfortunately, the Presbyterian records that could confirm this date are lost. In an 1893 interview William Smith said that Hyrum, Samuel, and Catherine were Presbyterians, but since Catherine was only eight in 1820, and Sophronia, whom Joseph named, was seventeen, Sophronia was more likely to be the sister who joined....All the circumstantial evidence notwithstanding, the date of Lucy Smith's engagement to Presbyterianism remains a matter of debate. It is possible to argue plausibly that she did not join until later Palmyra revivals in 1824.

Thus, a definitive answer to the question will probably elude us, though Bushman clearly favored the early date.

Critics act as if the matter has been settled the way the Reverend Wesley Walters hoped it would be--insisting that the 1824 date was the only viable one. This is false, and the weight of evidence is probably on the side of the "traditional" understanding of Lucy and at least some children as Presbyterians prior to an 1820 First Vision.

Did Lucy Mack Smith join the Presbyterian Church after her son Alvin died in 1823?

Lucy Mack Smith did not say in her autobiography that she joined the Presbyterian church after her son Alvin died

It is claimed that the Prophet's mother joined the Presbyterian church after Alvin Smith died in late 1823 (Joseph Smith said she joined in 1820). If Lucy Mack Smith joined the Presbyterian Church in 1823, then this contradicts Joseph's statement that she joined in 1820, thereby dating Joseph's First Vision to no earlier than 1823.

There are several problems with this argument. The most serious one is that Lucy Mack Smith did NOT say in her autobiography that she joined the Presbyterian church after her son Alvin died. The original manuscript of the autobiography (including the crossed-out portion) actually says:

• Alvin Smith died (19 November 1823).
• "lamentation and mourning filled the whole neighborhood".
• Those from Alvin's immediate circle felt "more than usual grief".
• The funeral and the interment took place.
• "The circumstances of [Alvin's] death aroused the neighborhood to the subject of religion".
• The Smith family "could not be comforted" because of Alvin's loss.
• "About this time there was a great revival in religion and the whole neighborhood was very much aroused to the subject and we among the rest flocked to the meetinghouse to see if there was a word of comfort for us that might relieve our overcharged feelings."
• One man was laboring in the area "to effect a union of all the churches that all denominations might be agreed to worship God with one mind and one heart".
• Lucy Mack Smith thought that this idea "looked right" and tried to persuade her husband to "join with them" (i.e., the unionized group of "all denominations").
• Lucy Mack Smith "wished" to join herself with this group.
• All the Smith children were "inclined" to join this group except Joseph (who refused from the first to attend the meetings).
• Joseph told his mother that he did not wish to prevent her or any member of the Smith family from attending any church meeting or "joining any church" that they liked but stated his own desire not to go with them. Joseph also stated that if they did join any church they would not be with them long because of "the wickedness of their hearts".
• Father Smith attended one meeting of the unionized church group but declined thereafter. He said that he did not object if Mother Smith and the children wanted to attend these meetings or join with the group.

There are several observations that will help to clarify the meaning of this text.

The effect of Alvin's funeral on the Smith family

Alvin's funeral was conducted by a Presbyterian clergyman named Benjamin B. Stockton. This detail raises the strong possibility that someone in the Smith household had an affiliation with the Presbyterian church by November 1823 (Stockton did not become the official pastor of Palmyra's Western Presbyterian Church until 18 February 1824). Indeed, in one of William Smith's recountings of Church history he seems very clearly to say that his mother and some of his siblings were members of the Presbyterian church at the time of Alvin's funeral. And in another recounting he states that they had this affiliation in the year 1820.

Did Lucy Mack Smith state when she joined the Presbyterians?

Lucy does not say when she joined the Presbyterians

Lucy Mack Smith does not say in her autobiography that she actually joined with the religious group that was composed of "all the churches". She only says that she desired to join with them. She may well have already been associated with the Presbyterians.

Lucy was baptized first and THEN in 1820 she formally joined a denomination

One Presbyterian author claims that "when Lucy reached Palmyra, she developed a connection with the Presbyterian church, even though she held aloof from membership." As support for this assertion, he cites Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 11-13 and notes that "Solomon Mack, Lucy's father, was a Universalist during her childhood but converted to orthodox Christianity in 1810." The author does not clarify the nature of Lucy's connection to the Presbyterian church after her arrival in Palmyra. Although he notes that Lucy "had sought spiritual comfort from a noted Presbyterian minister" while in Randolph, Vermont (citing Lucy's autobiography), he fails to note that this same autobiography provides the timeframe for when she was baptized. She says, "I concluded that my mind would be easier if I were baptized and I found a minister who was willing to baptize me and leave me free from membership in any church after which I pursued the same course until my oldest son [Alvin] attained his 22nd year" - which took place on 11 February 1820.

The "revival" mentioned by Lucy occurs one year prior to the 1824 revival

The "great revival in religion" that is mentioned in Mother Smith's autobiography appears to take place not long after Alvin's death in November 1823. In fact, it seems that it was Alvin's death that instigated this particular event. A disparity in timeframes (a one-year gap) calls any perceived connection between this event and Palmyra's 1824-25 revival into doubt. A ministerial eyewitness says that nothing much like a recognizable revival even took place in the village of Palmyra until December 1824 (The Methodist Magazine, vol. 8, no. 4, April 1825). Mother Smith does not mention any conversions during the December 1823 denomination-welding event which she describes while the December 1824 revival garnered more than 150 converts who joined themselves with various separate churches.

Lucy's family was suspended from fellowship in the Presbyterian church in March 1830

Church records confirm that Lucy's family was suspended from fellowship in the Western Presbyterian Church of Palmyra on March 10, 1830. The charge was 18 months of inactivity, which indicates that they had not attended since September 1828. This was one year after Joseph had received the plates.

Joseph's actions support the First Vision account of his relatives joining the Presbyterians

Joseph Smith's comments to his mother about joining "any" church are significant. He said that taking such an action would be a mistake because of what was in the hearts of the adherents. During the First Vision the Lord told Joseph that the hearts of the members of the Christian denominations were far from Him (1832 account). Joseph also told his mother that if she did decide to join one of the churches she would not be long with them. This make perfect sense when it is remembered that just a few months prior to this time Joseph had informed his family that an angel had told him about golden plates and indicated that God was about to reveal "a more perfect knowledge of the plan of salvation and the redemption of the human family" (Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, rev. ed. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996], chapter 18).

The facts contained within the primary source documents do not support the conclusions of the critics. Joseph Smith said that his mother and siblings were members of the Presbyterian church in 1820 when he had the First Vision and the writings of his mother and brother support that statement. Joseph Smith was not in a state of confusion or bent on deception when he recorded the occurrences of his past. Readers of the Prophet's history can have confidence in what is presented before them.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 18 ( Index of claims ) Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 240. ( Index of claims ) MormonThink.com website (as of 5 May 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm Wesley Walters. [citation needed] Wikipedia article "First Vision"–Primary editors: COgden and John Foxe, with additional contributions by multiple editors. ( FAIR's Analysis of this Wikipedia article) John A. Matzko, "The Encounter of Young Joseph Smith with Presbyterianism," Dialogue 40/3 (2007): 70-71.

What religious excitement was occurring in Palmyra in 1820?

Pearl of Great Price Central, Joseph Smith - History Insight #7: Religious Excitement near Palmyra, New York, 1816–1820

Methodist camp meetings were being held in Palmyra in 1820

Some claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it" Joseph Smith—History 1:5 Joseph Smith talked of observing, as a 14-year-old, "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion" in the Palmyra area during the Spring of 1820. Joseph notes that "It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country."

Abundant evidence of religious excitement exists to substantiate Joseph’s account. This has been thoroughly summarized by Pearl of Great Price Central. Their analysis may be accessed by clicking on the hyperlinked text.

One should keep in mind that Joseph Smith never used the term "revival" in his description - he simply described it as "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion." To a 14 year old who had been concerned about religion starting at age 12 after the 1817 revival, the ongoing camp meetings in the town in which he lived would certainly qualify.

Was there no mention of revival activity in 1820 in the newspaper?

References to regional revival activity in the Palmyra Register, a newspaper which Joseph's family would have read, are clearly evident

A Presbyterian historian on Wikipedia comments on this FAIR Wiki article:

FAIR disagrees with your assessment and stubbornly holds to an 1820 date, Methodist camp meetings as interdenominational revivals, no date conflation, and local newspapers not reporting local news. The FAIR page never suggests that the time and place of the interdenominational religious awakening is irrelevant...

Indeed, we "stubbornly hold" to the 1820 date, and we do not consider the time and place of religious awakening irrelevant. This claim by critics that there is no record of revival activity in the region surrounding Palmyra during the 1820 timeframe has simply not stood up to historical scrutiny. References to regional revival activity in the Palmyra Register, a newspaper which Joseph's family would have read, are clearly evident. While these revivals did not occur in Palmyra itself, their mention in the local newspaper would have given Joseph Smith the sense that there was substantial revival activity in the region.

• GREAT REVIVALS IN RELIGION. The religious excitement which has for some months prevailed in the towns of this vicinity...This is a time the prophets desired to see, but they never saw it....—Palmyra Register, June 7, 1820 (Ballston, NY - 196 miles away from Palmyra)
• REVIVAL. A letter from Homer [N.Y.] dated May 29, received in this town, states, that 200 persons had been hopefully converted in that town since January first; 100 of whom had been added to the Baptist church. The work was still progressing.—Palmyra Register, August 16, 1820 (Homer, NY - 76 miles away from Palmyra)
• REVIVALS OF RELIGION. "The county of Saratoga, for a long time, has been as barren of revivals of religion, as perhaps any other part of this state. It has been like 'the mountains of Gilboa, on which were neither rain nor dew.' But the face of the country has been wonderfully changed of late. The little cloud made its first appearance at Saratoga Springs last summer. As the result of this revival about 40 have made a public profession of religion in Rev. Mr. Griswold's church....A revival has just commenced in the town of Nassau, a little east of Albany. It has commenced in a very powerful manner....—Palmyra Register, September 13, 1820 (Saratoga, NY - 193 miles away from Palmyra)
• FROM THE RELIGIOUS REMEMBRANCER A SPIRITUAL HARVEST. "I wish you could have been with us yesterday. I had the pleasure to witness 80 persons receive the seal of the covenant, in front of our Church. Soon after 135 persons, new members, were received into full communion. All the first floor of the Church was cleared; the seats and pews were all crowded with the members...Palmyra Register, October 4, 1820 (Bloomingsgrove, NY - 209 miles away from Palmyra)

There wasn't even any mention of the 1818 revival in Palmrya in the local newspaper

Critics often wish to place the revival which Joseph spoke about in 1818. However, even though we know that a revival occurred in Palmyra during June 1818, there is no mention of it in the town paper, despite the fact that it was attended by Robert R. Roberts, who was one of "only three Methodist bishops in North America."

Once again, the commonality of such an event did not ensure that it would get a mention—yet, by the critics' same argument, this "silence" in the newspaper should mean that the 1818 revival didn't happen either.

What evidence of religious excitement is there from non-Mormon sources?

Pearl of Great Price Central, Joseph Smith - History Insight #7: Religious Excitement near Palmyra, New York, 1816–1820

Evidence of religious excitement from non-Mormon sources

Non-Mormon evidence demonstrates that there was a considerable increase in membership among some Christian sects. One source goes so far as to point out the growth over a given period without explicit revivals:

1817 to 1830 increase from 6 to 80 without revival, in a particular circuit (emphasis added).

David Marks was born the same year as Joseph Smith, 1805. His parents moved to Junius, not far from Palmyra, when he was a teenager. He became very religious very early, and left home to become an itinerant Baptism minister. He published his memoirs in 1831. Here are some things he has to say about happenings in Junius and Phelps [Vienna], in 1819:

In the fall of the year 1818, upon relating my experience to the Calvinistic Baptist church in Junius, they received me as a candidate for baptism;….

I continued to attend the Baptist covenant meetings, and was treated with the same studied coldness as before. Six months had passed [i.e., sometime in spring 1819], since the church received me as a candidate for baptism,….

In the month of July, 1819, Elder Zabulon Dean, and his companion, having heard of my situation, and feeling interested, sent an appointment to our neighborhood; and came thirty miles, accompanied by brother Samuel Wire, then an unordained preacher, Deacon C., and Brother S. They were all Free-Will Baptists, and the first of whom I had any knowledge. On Saturday, July 10th, I meet with them, learned their sentiments, spirit and humility; which so well accorded with my own views and feelings, that desiring to be baptized, I related to them my experience and sentiments, also the manner in which my application to unite with the Baptist church had been received and afterwards rejected. They expressed satisfaction with my experience, approved of my sentiments, and the next day, being the Sabbath, a meeting was appointed for preaching and examination, at the house where the Baptist church usually met for worship (29).

On the 17th of the same month [July 1819], I attended the Benton Quarterly Meeting of the Free-Will Baptists, in the town of Phelps, eighteen miles from my father’s, and was there received a member of the church in that place. Five were baptized, communion and washing feet attended to, and a profitable season was enjoyed. After this, Elder Dean and brother Wire frequently preached in Junius, and a good reformation followed their labors; in which some of my former persecutors were converted to the faith of the gospel. In the ensuing autumn, brother Wire was ordained. He and Elder Dean baptized fifteen in Junius, who united with the church in Phelps; but in January following [1820], they were dismissed and acknowledged a church in Junius, taking the scriptures for their only rule of faith and practice. Being absent at the time of its organization, I did not become one of its members till the ensuing Spring. This church walked in gospel order several months, and enjoyed many happy seasons. But the summer of prosperity passed, and the winter of adversity succeeded. New and unexpected trials brought heaviness and mourning. Seven or eight, who first united and were well engaged, soon turned aside after Satan and walked no more with us. Iniquity abounding, the love of some waxed cold. Every feeling of my soul was pained, when those with whom I had taken sweet counsel, thus wounded the innocent cause of Jesus and brought it into reproach. But while our number decreased by [31] excommunications, the Lord more than supplied the vacancies by adding to the church of such as should be saved.

Clearly, there was extensive religious excitement in the Palmyra area. A young man of Joseph's age was likewise much taken by it, as Joseph himself was.

What was happening in Joseph's area in 1820

Joseph states that about 1820 "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion" had commenced, and that "[i]t commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country." The Palmyra newspaper reported many conversions in the "burned-over" district. The Palmyra Register recorded that the Methodists had a religious camp meeting in 1820. Since they did not have a chapel yet, they would meet in the woods on Vienna Road. Pomeroy Tucker (a witness hostile to Joseph Smith) states that "protracted revival meetings were customary in some of the churches, and Smith frequented those of different denominations…" These revivals in 1820 must have helped the Methodists, for they were able to build their first church in Palmyra by 1822, down on Vienna Road where they held their camp meetings. The Zion Episcopal Church was originated in 1823. In 1817, the Presbyterians were able to split into an eastern group and a western group. The eastern group used the only actual church building that was in Palmyra in 1820, while the western group assembled in the town hall.

Were revivals and religious excitement too common to be noticed in the newspapers?

Pearl of Great Price Central, Joseph Smith - History Insight #7: Religious Excitement near Palmyra, New York, 1816–1820

One report of a Methodist camp meeting in Palmyra only made it into the local newspaper because of a fatality due to alcohol consumption

Ironically, evidence for local religious meetings was less likely to be documented in the newspapers because they were so common. One report of a Methodist camp meeting in Palmyra only made it into the local newspaper because of a fatality due to alcohol consumption. The paper, in a less politically correct time, pointed out that the deceased was Irish and had died due to alcohol at the Camp-ground outside Palmyra:

The deceased, we are informed, arrived at Mr. McCollum's house the evening preceding, from a camp-meeting which was held in this vicinity, in a state of intoxication....It is supposed he obtained his liquor, which was no doubt the cause of his death, at the Camp-ground, where, it is a notorious fact, the intemperate, the lewd and dissolute part of community too frequently resort for no better object, than to gratify their base propensities.

The Methodists strenuously objected to the implication that their camp meetings where places where people came to get drunk. The Palmyra Register printed a clarification about a week later:

By this expression we did not mean to insinuate, that he obtained it within the enclosure of their place of worship, or that he procured it of them, but at the grog-shops that were established at, or near if you please, their camp-ground. It was far from our intention to charge the Methodists with retailing ardent spirits while professedly met for the worship of their God.

Thus, Joseph's recollection of religious excitement in Palmyra is confirmed at the very edge of the Spring of 1820; very close to the time when he said he prayed to God about religion.

Did Joseph Smith simply conflate elements of the 1818 and 1824-25 revivals in his story of the First Vision?

Pearl of Great Price Central, Joseph Smith - History Insight #7: Religious Excitement near Palmyra, New York, 1816–1820

There is documentary evidence that shows abundant religious activity in the region surrounding Palmyra, New York during the 1819-1820 time period

Some critics and armchair scholars have come to the conclusion that some of the revival story elements found in Joseph Smith's 1838 historical narrative are not really accurate, but rather are representative of a conflation of facts. These people believe that Joseph Smith was actually mixing parts of 1818 and 1824-25 Palmyra revival activities into his storyline about what happened in 1820. In other words, they claim that the Prophet's narrative is not historically accurate - but not deceptively so.

The problem with the 'conflation theory' is two-fold: (1) It can be demonstrated that one of the most important pieces of documentary evidence which is used to support this theory does not actually say what some people think it says - see the FAIRwiki paper called Conflation of 1824-25 revival?. See also the Insight from Pearl of Great Price Central linked above. (2) There is plenty of documentary evidence that shows abundant revival activity in the general region surrounding Palmyra, New York during an 1819-1820 time period. A careful examination of Joseph Smith's 1838 narrative reveals that three distinct zones of revival activity are being referred to by him and each of these can be confirmed in non-LDS newspapers and ecclesiastical sources. When all of these sources are taken into account the idea of conflation loses most of its strength.

Palmyra Register (1820): "It was far from our intention to charge the Methodists with retailing ardent spirits while professedly met for the worship of their God"

28 June 1820: "The deceased, we are informed, arrived...from a camp-meeting which was held in this vicinity, in a state of intoxication"

Palmyra Register, 28 June 1820:

Effects of Drunkenness--DIED at the house of Mr. Robert McCollum, in this town, on the 26th inst. James Couser, aged about forty years. The deceased, we are informed, arrived at Mr. McCollum's house the evening preceding, from a camp-meeting which was held in this vicinity, in a state of intoxication. He, with his companion who was also in the same debasing condition, called for supper, which was granted. They both stayed the night--called for breakfast next morning--when notified that it was ready, the deceased was found wrestling with his companion, who he flung with the greatest ease,--he suddenly sunk down upon a bench,--was taken with an epileptic fit, and immediately expired.--It is supposed he obtained his liquor, which was no doubt the cause of his death, at the Camp-ground, where, it is a notorious fact, the intemperate, the lewd and dissolute part of community too frequently resort for no better object, than to gratify their base propensities.

The deceased, who was an Irishman, we understand has left a family, living at Catskill this state.

Mention of "the Camp-ground" did not endear the paper to the local Methodists, who objected to the implication that this (the location of their worship services) was the site of drinking to excess and a place of gathering by the "dissolute part" of the community. An article appeared in the same paper a week later which said:

5 July 1820: "Methodists...we did not mean to insinuate, that he obtained it within the enclosure of their place of worship"

Palmyra Register, 5 July 1820

"Plain Truth" is received. By this communication, as well as by the remarks of some of our neighbors who belong to the Society of Methodists, we perceive that our remarks accompanying the notice of the unhappy death of James Couser, contained in our last, have not been correctly understood. "Plain truth" says, we committed "an error in point of fact," in saying that Couser "obtained his liquor at the camp-ground." By this expression we did not mean to insinuate, that he obtained it within the enclosure of their place of worship, or that he procured it of them, but at the grog-shops that were established at, or near if you please, their camp-ground. It was far from our intention to charge the Methodists with retailing ardent spirits while professedly met for the worship of their God. Neither did we intend to implicate them by saying that "the intemperate, the dissolute, &c. resort to their meetings."--And if so we have been understood by any one of that society, we assure them they have altogether mistaken our meaning.

Benajah Williams (1820): "Had a two Days meeting at Sq Bakers in Richmond. Br. Wright being gone to campmeeting on Ridgeway circuit I expected to find Br. J. Hayes at the Meeting"

In July 1820, a minister named Benajah Williams wrote the following of a camp meeting at a site only twenty-eight miles from Palmyra:

"Sat. 15th10 Had a two Days meeting at Sq Bakers in Richmond. Br. Wright being gone to campmeeting on Ridgeway circuit I expected to find Br. J. Hayes at the Meeting & calculated to get him to take the lead of the meeting but when on my way to meeting met him going to conference & tried to get him to return but he thout[sic] not best as his horse was young, he said he could not ride through by conference by the time it commenced Then I thout what shall I do I shall have to take the lead at the meeting & do the p- (preaching) but the Lord prepaired him self a preacher it rained powerfully until 11 o’clock so that I was verry wet I called with some of the Brtheren at Br. Eldredges11 and took dinner then rode to the place appointed for meeting. & found Br. Lane a Presiding Elder from Susquehanna District with five more preachers. Br. Warner p. on Sat. Br. Griffing exhorted. We had a good prayer meeting at six in the evening."

"Sab. 16th Our Lovefeast began at 9 & the Lord was present to bless & we had a shout in the camp. Br E Bibbins p- at 11 from…the lord attended the word & the people were satisfied with the Sermons. Br. Lane exhorted and spoke on Gods method in bringing about Reffermations [sic] his word was with as from the authority of God. & not as the Areons. After him Br. Griffin with life & energy & Br. Vose closed the Meeting after with some of the Brethren dined with Br. W. E…."

Did Gordon B. Hinckley cite false information regarding an 1820 Palmyra revival in a book called Truth Restored?

The evidence does not suggest that this was an attempt to deceive, but simply an error that was perpetuated between multiple authors

It is claimed that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, and that Gordon B. Hinckley cited false information regarding an 1820 revival in a book called Truth Restored. The material found in Truth Restored was written in 1947 under the title What of the Mormons? It was written as an introduction to the Church for non-members when Gordon B. Hinckley was a 37-year-old employee of the Church.

Several chapters were later reprinted as Truth Restored. The relevant material reads as follows:

This condition among the people of the frontier areas of America became a matter of serious concern to religious leaders. A crusade was begun to "convert the unconverted." It was carried over a vast area from the New England states to Kentucky. In 1820 it reached western New York. The ministers of the various denominations united in their efforts, and many conversions were made among the scattered settlers. One week a Rochester paper noted: "More than two hundred souls have become hopeful subjects of divine grace in Palmyra, Macedon, Manchester, Lyons, and Ontario since the late revival commenced." The week following it was able to report "that in Palmyra and Macedon . . . more than four hundred souls have already confessed that the Lord is good."

The source for this claim is Preston Nibley, Joseph Smith the Prophet (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1946), pp. 21-22. Nibley, in turn is quoting from Willard Bean, A. B. C. History of Palmyra and the Beginning of "Mormonism (1938). Bean writes:

In the year 1819 a sort of religious awakening... spread... After reaching New York it spread to the rural districts upstate, reaching Palmyra and vicinity in the Spring of 1820.... The revival started the latter part of April [1820]... which gave the farmers a chance to attend the meetings... By the first of May, the revival was well under way with scores of people confessing religion... The revival had been even more successful than the ministers had anticipated. I quote from the Religious Advocate of Rochester: 'More than 200 souls have become hopeful subjects of divine grace in Palmyra, Macedon, Manchester, Lyons and Ontario since the late revival commenced. This is a powerful work. It is among young as well as old people.... A week later [also from the 'Religious Advocate' of Rochester]... 'It may be added that in Palmyra and Macedon, including Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist churches, more than 400 have already confessed that the Lord is good. The work is still progressing. In neighboring towns, the number is great and still increasing. Glory be to God on high; and on earth peace and good will to all men.'"

This is almost certainly a miscitation

Yet, as the Reverend Wesley Walters pointed out in his article which attempted to dispute the existence of a revival, this is almost certainly a miscitation, since the quoted newspaper did not begin publication until 1825.

Thus, Gordon Hinckley (1947) quoted a line from Nibley (1946), who was quoting from Bean (1938) that was in error. It is important to remember, however, that then-Bro. Hinckley's book was not intended to be a scholarly treatise, but was an introduction to the basics of Church history. The material from 1947 was later reprinted as Truth Restored.

Despite the miscitation, there actually is, however, evidence of religious excitement in Palmyra in 1820

Despite the claims of Walters and other critics, modern research has demonstrated that there were religious meeting in the Palmyra area in 1820. The cited newspaper article did not apply to the 1820 events, but other reports are known today which would make the same point.

The evidence does not suggest that this was an attempt to deceive, but simply an error that was perpetuated between multiple authors.

Anti-Mormon authors should be well aware of this phenomenon—anti-Mormon arguments are constantly recycled and requoted by their successors, with little heed given to LDS responses or the primary sources. In this respect, the Church has done better than the critics—the current brief introduction to Church history, Our Heritage, quotes no newspapers about the 1820 revival.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 40,348n123. ( Index of claims ) (Abanes cites pp. 1-2 for his claim.)

Christofferson (2013): "Critics have also claimed that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York, area in 1820"

Elder D. Todd Christofferson, at a BYU Idaho devotional in 2013:

Critics have also claimed that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York, area in 1820, as Joseph Smith reported in his history. With today’s greater access to original sources, including the Palmyra Register newspaper, there is ample evidence of religious revivals in the area during 1820 and some years prior. It appears that the Methodists had a regularly used camp meeting ground, and that revivals were common enough that often they garnered no coverage in the newspapers unless something out of the ordinary occurred such as a death. (Footnote 12)

⍗

Learn more about religious excitement in the time of Joseph Smith's First Vision

Wiki links	Doesn't mention revival?
Online	Donald L. Enders, "A Snug Log House," Ensign (August 1985): 16.off-site Steven C. Harper, "Evaluating Three Arguments Against Joseph Smith's First Vision," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 2/2 (12 October 2012). [17–34] link D. Michael Quinn, "Joseph Smith's Experience of a Methodist 'Camp-Meeting'," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought - Dialogue Paperless: E-Paper #3 (12 July 2006), PDF link
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young First Vision

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 35, 340 n.77. ( Index of claims ) Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 15 ( Index of claims ) Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 240. ( Index of claims ) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 166–171.( Index of claims ) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?, 5th edition, (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 143–162-D. MormonThink.com website (as of 5 May 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm Wesley P. Walters, “Joseph’s First Vision Story Undermined,” The Quarterly Journal of Watchman Fellowship (January–March 1988), 4. Wesley P. Walters, Joseph Smith’s Move to Palmyra and Manchester, NY (A Preliminary Report) (unpublished, 1990). H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record (Salt Lake City, Utah: Smith Research Associates [distributed by Signature Books], 1994), [citation needed]. Wesley P. Walters, "New Light on Mormon Origins From the Palmyra Revival," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 4 no. 1 (Spring 1969), 60–81. Wikipedia article "First Vision"–Primary editors: COgden and John Foxe, with additional contributions by multiple editors. ( FAIR's Analysis of this Wikipedia article)

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

Response to claim: 29 - The author claims that Joseph “did not publish his accont of his first vision until 1842”

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Joseph “did not publish his accont of his first vision until 1842.”

Author's sources: Not provided

FAIR's Response

No mention in non-LDS literature before 1843?

Summary: There is no mention of the First Vision in non-Mormon literature before 1843. If the First Vision story had been known by the public before 1840 (when Orson Pratt published his pamphlet) the anti-Mormons “surely” would have seized upon it as an evidence of Joseph Smith’s imposture.

Response to claim: 30- The author claims that “the revival that Smith described…did not happen until 1824-25, not in the year 1820”

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that “the revival that Smith described…did not happen until 1824-25, not in the year 1820.”

Author's sources: Not provided.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Joseph never claimed that the “excitement” on the subject of religion was a revival. There is evidence of substantial religious activity in the area during 1820.

< Back to FAIR Answers Index

V

Articles about Joseph Smith's First Vision

Accounts	Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision Multiple accounts of the First Vision Differences in First Vision accounts
Historical context	Events leading to the First Vision Events after the First Vision
Doctrinal impact	The First Vision and doctrine Seldom taught before 1877?

Video published by Doctrine and Covenants Central.

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

Is there evidence that the Smith family was in the Palmyra area in 1820?

It has been claimed that there is no evidence that the Smith family was in the Palmyra area in 1820 for the religious excitement and First Vision

It is claimed that there are discrepancies in Joseph's account of his family's early history, which make his 1820 and subsequent revelations impossible. Specifically, it has been claimed that there is no evidence that the Smith family was in the Palmyra area in 1820 for the religious excitement and First Vision which Joseph reported.

Road tax records indicate that Joseph Smith, Sr. was in Palmyra Road District #26 from 1817 till 1822

Documentary evidence came to light in 1970 to show that the Smiths were living in a log cabin within the Palmyra borders as late as April 1822. This discovery led Donald Enders, of the Church’s Historical Department, to do an in-depth study of this matter and publish an article in the Church’s Ensign magazine that concluded "Although the farm was located on the Manchester side of the Palmyra-Manchester township line, the Smith’s inadvertently built their cabin on the Palmyra side" on property owned by someone else.

Road tax records that the LDS Genealogical Department copied indicates Joseph Smith, Sr. was in Palmyra Road District #26 from 1817 till 1822. Since the road tax records were done in April, this indicates that Father Smith did not arrive in Palmyra to stay until after April 1816 and yet before April 1817.

The U.S. Census Bureau listed the Smiths in Farmington (now Manchester) in 1820

The U.S. Census Bureau listed the Smiths in Farmington (now Manchester) in 1820. The Smith farm, clearing the land and a log house, all supported evidence that the Smiths, and most everyone else, considered themselves in Manchester, even though they technically lived about 59 feet off their property. Legal U.S. documents now considered the Smiths in Farmington (later called Manchester) even though, technically, the log house was 59 feet away on the Palmyra side of the line.

The log house that everyone says they built in 1818 or 1819 was inadvertently built on the wrong side of the Farmington (Manchester)-Palmyra line

Moving to Manchester, it seems probable that the Smiths did not formally move to the new frame house on the east side of Stafford Road until after the winter of 1822. The log house that everyone says they built in 1818 or 1819 was inadvertently built on the wrong side of the Farmington (Manchester)-Palmyra line. Such an "accident" is entirely possible in a day when boundary lines may not have been well established. This would mean that the Smith family did not actually dwell on the Manchester side of the line until after November of 1822, when according to Mother Smith, "the frame was raised, and all the materials necessary for its [their frame house] speedy completion were procured." "An unidentifiable newspaper article on microfilm at Brigham Young University library" mentions that after some time, it was discovered that the cabin originally built by the Smiths was not on the land originally contracted by them. Arrangements were then made with Samuel Jennings to purchase the land on which the log cabin was erected.

Finding the Smiths not on their property by just under 60 feet, the Palmyra road tax overseers recorded the Smiths on their road tax lists until 1822

Finding the Smiths not on their property by just under 60 feet, the Palmyra road tax overseers recorded the Smiths on their road tax lists until 1822 when the Smiths were able to raise the frame of a larger house (this time, on their property), move into the house, and work to complete the house after the move. This move occurred before the tax liens were completed in 1823. The tax liens on the property increased $300 to reflect the move. The move to the log house by the Smiths in 1818 was considered a move to Manchester by Joseph Jr., in his history, for it was a move to their farm where he was going to labor for many years to come. An imaginary line separated them from physically being in Manchester.

Joseph Smith was living in the area at the right time to be near the Sacred Grove where God and His Son appeared to him

Contemporary eyewitnesses, who were critical of Joseph Smith, do indeed verify that the Smiths were in the area where Joseph said they were. Modern critics now try to claim that he was not there. The evidence proves these new critics wrong.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record (Salt Lake City, Utah: Smith Research Associates [distributed by Signature Books], 1994), 7-8. Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?, 5th edition, (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 143–162-D. MormonThink.com website (as of 5 May 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm Wesley P. Walters, “Joseph’s First Vision Story Undermined,” The Quarterly Journal of Watchman Fellowship (January–March 1988), 4. Wesley P. Walters, Joseph Smith’s Move to Palmyra and Manchester, NY (A Preliminary Report) (unpublished, 1990). Wesley P. Walters, "New Light on Mormon Origins From the Palmyra Revival," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 4 no. 1 (Spring 1969), 60–81. Wikipedia article "First Vision"–Primary editors: COgden and John Foxe, with additional contributions by multiple editors. ( FAIR's Analysis of this Wikipedia article)

What critical claims are related to Joseph Smith becoming "partial to the Methodist sect" near the time of the First Vision?

It is claimed that Joseph didn't become "partial to the Methodist sect" until at least 1823, after Alvin's death, or as late as 1838, rather than in 1820 as he claimed in his 1838 First Vision account

The Wikipedia article "First Vision" (as of May 18, 2009) contains the assertion:

While [Joseph] almost certainly never formally joined the Methodist church, he did associate himself with the Methodists eight years after he said he had been instructed by God not to join any established denomination.

In John A. Matzko, "The Encounter of Young Joseph Smith with Presbyterianism," Dialogue 40/3 (2007): 71., the author claims:

Although Joseph later wrote that his "Father’s family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith,"—rather than emphasizing his mother’s membership—the death of Alvin and the arrival of Stockton seem to have driven both Smith and his father (who glided easily between religious skepticism and folk mysticism) farther from the Presbyterian church and its Calvinistic doctrine. It was probably during this period that Joseph "became partial to the Methodist sect," whose opposition to Reformed doctrine was notorious.

It is entirely reasonable to conclude that Joseph was telling the truth when he said that he became "partial to the Methodist sect" in 1820. Critics who attempt to place this event later in Joseph's life do so in order to discredit the story of the First Vision.

When did Joseph Smith become "partial to the Methodist sect?"

A contemporary account places the date in the 1819-1820 timeframe

The following is taken from a hostile source, Orsamus Turner (Orsamus Turner, Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase (Buffalo 1849), p. 429):

And a most unpromising recipient of such a trust was this same Joseph Smith, Jr., afterwards Jo Smith." He was lounging, idle, (not to say vicious,) and possessed of less than ordinary intellect. The author's own recollections of him are distinct. He used to come into the village of Palmyra, with little jags of wood, from his back-woods home; sometimes patronizing a village grocery too freely; sometimes finding an odd job to do about the store of Seymour Scovell; and once a week he would stroll into the office of the old Palmyra Register for his father's paper. How impious in us young "dare devils" *

Turner then inserts a footnote which dates this to 1819-1820:

* Here the author remembers to have first seen the family, in the winter of '19, and '20, in a rude log house, with but a small spot of underbrush around it.

Turner continues:

...to once in a while blacken the face of the then meddling, inquisitive lounger—but afterwards prophet—with the old-fashioned balls, when he used to put himself in the way of the working of the old-fashioned Ramage press! The editor of the Cultivator at Albany—esteemed as he may justly consider himself for his subsequent enterprise and usefulness—may think of it with contrition and repentance, that he once helped thus to disfigure the face of a prophet, and, remotely, the founder of a state.

But Joseph had a little ambition, and some very laudable aspirations; the mother's intellect occasionally shone out in him feebly, especially when he used to help us to solve some portentous questions of moral or political ethics, in our juvenile debating club, which we moved down to the old red school-house on Durfee street, to get rid of the annoyance of critics that used to drop in upon us in the village; amid, subsequently, after catching a spark of Methodism in the camp-meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road, he was a very passable exhorter in evening meetings.

It is also known that the Methodists held at least one camp meeting in the Palmyra area in mid-1820, prior to their purchase of the property on Vienna Road.

Does this mean Joseph became a Methodist?

Turner's source is not talking about Joseph Smith acting as an exhorter in evening meetings of the Methodist denomination, but rather the evening meetings spoken of were the gatherings of the juvenile debate club. This conclusion is supported by a newspaper article in the Western Farmer which announced that the Palmyra debate club would begin meeting in the local schoolhouse on 25 January 1822. We learn from firsthand witnesses that children attended school in Palmyra during the winter months and through the end of March. Since school was in session during the same time period when the debate club was meeting it would not be possible for them occupy the same building at the same time. Therefore, the debate club would have to meet at the schoolhouse during evening hours.

It should also be noted that no critic or advocate of this theory has ever bothered to explain just how Joseph Smith became a Methodist exhorter without first becoming a Methodist. And remember, Pomeroy Tucker stated quite clearly in his book that even though Joseph attended Methodist meetings he did not convert to that faith.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Wikipedia article "First Vision"–Primary editors: COgden and John Foxe, with additional contributions by multiple editors. ( FAIR's Analysis of this Wikipedia article) John A. Matzko, "The Encounter of Young Joseph Smith with Presbyterianism," Dialogue 40/3 (2007): 71.

When did the Methodists acquire property near Palmyra to hold their camp meetings?

The Methodists' acquisition of property on Vienna Road in July 1821

Some wish to discount the story of the First Vision by asserting that Joseph's claim that the "unusual excitement" about religion that "commenced with the Methodists" could not have occurred. Specifically, it is claimed that Methodist camp meetings would not have occurred until after July 1821, since the Methodists did not acquire property in the area until that time.

The Wikipedia article "First Vision" (as of May 18, 2009) contained the unsupported assertion in a footnote (the assertion that this was Joseph's "first dabble with Methodism" has since been removed):

Bushman, 69-70. The Methodists did not acquire property on the Vienna Road until July 1821, so it is likely that Smith's first dabble with Methodism occurred during the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra.

The Bushman reference (Rough Stone Rolling) states nothing about the Methodists' acquisition of property, nor does it claim that Joseph's "first dabble" with Methodism occurred during the 1824 revival. The statement was simply asserted by the editor of the wiki article. (Note: Sometime prior to September 2009, another Wikipedia editor has since replaced the unsupported assertion above with the citation by Dr. Matzko below).

Matzko makes the same assertion regarding the property on Vienna Road, however, he backs up it with a citation. According to Matzko:

Since the Methodists did not acquire property on the Vienna Road until July 1821, the camp meetings were almost certainly held after that date. [citing Wesley Walters, "A Reply to Dr. Bushman," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 4, no. 1 (Spring 1969): 99.]

The Methodists were already holding "camp meetings" in 1820

In contrast to the Wikipedia article, however, Matzko does provide a balancing reference to the 1820 Methodist camp meeting:

D. Michael Quinn argues that, on the contrary, a Methodist camp meeting of 1820 can be fairly interpreted as the religious revival to which Joseph Smith refers and that Methodists typically only asked permission to use property for camp meetings rather than purchase the land.palm

One need not refer to Quinn, however, to demonstrate that at least one Methodist camp meeting took play near Palymra in 1820. The Palymra Register notes the occurrence of a Methodist camp meeting in the area in June 1820. From the Palmyra Register June 28, 1820:

Effects of Drunkenness.—DIED at the house of Mr. Robert M'Collum, in this town, on the 26th inst. James Couser, aged about forty years. The deceased, we are informed, arrived at Mr. M'Collum's house the evening preceding, from a camp-meeting which was held in this vicinity, in a state of intoxication. He with his companion who was also in the same debasing condition, called for supper, which was granted. They both stayed all night—called for breakfast next morning—when notified that it was ready, the deceased was found wrestling with his companion, whom he flung with the greatest ease,—he suddenly sunk down upon a bench,—was taken with an epileptic fit, and immediately expires.—It is supposed he obtained his liquor, which was no doubt the cause of his death, at the Camp-ground, where, it is a notorious fact, the intemperate, the lewd and dissolute part of the community too frequently resort for no better object, than to gratify their base propensities.

We find in the subsequent issue that the Methodist's objected to the paper's implication of what happened at their camp meeting, and the Register published something of a retraction. From the Palmyra Register July 5, 1820:

"Plain Truth" is received. By this communication, as well as by the remarks of some of our neighbors who belong to the Society of Methodists, we perceive that our remarks accompanying the notice of the unhappy death of James Couser, contained in our last, have not been correctly understood. "Plain truth" says, we committed "an error in point of fact," in saying the Couser "obtained his liquor at the camp-ground." By this expression we did not mean to insinuate, that he obtained it within the enclosure of their place of worship, or that he procured it of them, but at the grog-shops that were established at, or near if you please, their camp-ground. It was far from our intention to charge the Methodists with retailing ardent spirits while professedly met for worship of their God. Neither did we intend to implicate them by saying that "the intemperate, the dissolute, &c. resort to their meetings."—And if so we have been understood by any one of that society, we assure them they have altogether mistaken our meaning.

The Methodists were clearly holding camp meeting prior to their acquisition of property on Vienna road in 1821

• The Palmya Register clearly records that the Methodist's were holding a camp meeting in June 1820. This contradicts the assertion that "Since the Methodists did not acquire property on the Vienna Road until July 1821, the camp meetings were almost certainly held after that date."
• The newspaper did not report on this meeting directly—the camp meeting only became notable when a complaint was made by the Methodists regarding the association of the meeting with the death of a drunken man. This contradicts the critics' assertion that the absence of mention of a camp meeting or "revival" in the local newspaper means that one never occurred.
• If the meetings were common then they were not news—they were only reported when something unusual happened, like a death. This suggests that not only were Methodists meeting locally in 1820 (something proven by the Palmyra Register account), but such meetings were probably a frequent occurrence.

Did Joseph Smith join the Methodists as an "exhorter" years after being told not to join another church during the First Vision?

Joseph was not a "licensed exhorter" for the Methodists, but instead participated in a "juvenile debating club"

Although the Palmyra Register does not specify the location of the Methodist camp meeting in 1820, we do have evidence that meetings were indeed occurring on Vienna Road. John Matzko cites Orsamus Turner,

At some point between 1821 and 1829, Smith served as "a very passable exhorter" at Methodist camp meetings "away down in the woods, on the Vienna Road."

It should be noted that Matzko's assertion that this occurred "between 1821 and 1829" is not supported by the source, since Turner never specifies the timeframe during which Joseph acted as an "exhorter." Despite the fact that Turner is a hostile source , the full quote does contain some important additional information,

But Joseph had a little ambition, and some very laudable aspirations; the mother's intellect occasionally shone out in him feebly, especially when he used to help us to solve some portentous questions of moral or political ethics, in our juvenile debating club, which we moved down to the old red school-house on Durfee street, to get rid of the annoyance of critics that used to drop in upon us in the village; amid, subsequently, after catching a spark of Methodism in the camp-meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road, he was a very passable exhorter in evening meetings.

Joseph could not have been a "licensed exhorter" without being a member of the Methodist Church

This quote presents critics with a dilemma (as can be seen in the Wikipedia article "First Vision"). Critics wish to demonstrate the Joseph was associated with the Methodists after being instructed during the First Vision not to join any church. They attempt to do this by minimizing the mention of a "debate club" and instead imply that Joseph was a formal "exhorter" in Methodist meetings. It is noteworthy, however, that even critic Dan Vogel states that Joseph "could not have been a licensed exhorter since membership was a prerequisite."

This is consistent with Joseph Smith's own history, in which he stated that he became "partial to the Methodist sect" and that he "felt some desire to be united with them"

Joseph Smith:

During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

John A. Matzko, "The Encounter of Young Joseph Smith with Presbyterianism," Dialogue 40/3 (2007): 78. MormonThink.com website (as of 5 May 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm Wikipedia article "First Vision"–Primary editors: COgden and John Foxe, with additional contributions by multiple editors. ( FAIR's Analysis of this Wikipedia article)

When was Lucy Mack Smith baptized as a Presbyterian?

Richard Bushman: "In recounting her baptism around 1803, Lucy Smith by implication suggested a date for her membership in the Presbyterian church in Palmyra"

Lucy Mack Smith recorded in her history that she sought out baptism sometime around 1803, without formally joining any Church at that time. The Reverend Wesley Walters attempts to place Lucy's association with the Presbyterians at 1824, to coincide with the formal 1824 revival. In 1987, Richard Bushman summarized the debates about Lucy's Presbyterianism to that point:

In recounting her baptism around 1803, Lucy Smith by implication suggested a date for her membership in the Presbyterian church in Palmyra. She had searched for a minister who would baptize her without the requirement of commitment to one church. She found such a man, who left her "free in regard to joining any religious denomination." After this, she says, "I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance; after which I continued to read the Bible as formerly until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year." Biographical Sketches, pp. 48-49. Alvin was twenty-two in 1820. Unfortunately, the Presbyterian records that could confirm this date are lost. In an 1893 interview William Smith said that Hyrum, Samuel, and Catherine were Presbyterians, but since Catherine was only eight in 1820, and Sophronia, whom Joseph named, was seventeen, Sophronia was more likely to be the sister who joined....All the circumstantial evidence notwithstanding, the date of Lucy Smith's engagement to Presbyterianism remains a matter of debate. It is possible to argue plausibly that she did not join until later Palmyra revivals in 1824.

Thus, a definitive answer to the question will probably elude us, though Bushman clearly favored the early date.

Critics act as if the matter has been settled the way the Reverend Wesley Walters hoped it would be--insisting that the 1824 date was the only viable one. This is false, and the weight of evidence is probably on the side of the "traditional" understanding of Lucy and at least some children as Presbyterians prior to an 1820 First Vision.

Did Lucy Mack Smith join the Presbyterian Church after her son Alvin died in 1823?

Lucy Mack Smith did not say in her autobiography that she joined the Presbyterian church after her son Alvin died

It is claimed that the Prophet's mother joined the Presbyterian church after Alvin Smith died in late 1823 (Joseph Smith said she joined in 1820). If Lucy Mack Smith joined the Presbyterian Church in 1823, then this contradicts Joseph's statement that she joined in 1820, thereby dating Joseph's First Vision to no earlier than 1823.

There are several problems with this argument. The most serious one is that Lucy Mack Smith did NOT say in her autobiography that she joined the Presbyterian church after her son Alvin died. The original manuscript of the autobiography (including the crossed-out portion) actually says:

• Alvin Smith died (19 November 1823).
• "lamentation and mourning filled the whole neighborhood".
• Those from Alvin's immediate circle felt "more than usual grief".
• The funeral and the interment took place.
• "The circumstances of [Alvin's] death aroused the neighborhood to the subject of religion".
• The Smith family "could not be comforted" because of Alvin's loss.
• "About this time there was a great revival in religion and the whole neighborhood was very much aroused to the subject and we among the rest flocked to the meetinghouse to see if there was a word of comfort for us that might relieve our overcharged feelings."
• One man was laboring in the area "to effect a union of all the churches that all denominations might be agreed to worship God with one mind and one heart".
• Lucy Mack Smith thought that this idea "looked right" and tried to persuade her husband to "join with them" (i.e., the unionized group of "all denominations").
• Lucy Mack Smith "wished" to join herself with this group.
• All the Smith children were "inclined" to join this group except Joseph (who refused from the first to attend the meetings).
• Joseph told his mother that he did not wish to prevent her or any member of the Smith family from attending any church meeting or "joining any church" that they liked but stated his own desire not to go with them. Joseph also stated that if they did join any church they would not be with them long because of "the wickedness of their hearts".
• Father Smith attended one meeting of the unionized church group but declined thereafter. He said that he did not object if Mother Smith and the children wanted to attend these meetings or join with the group.

There are several observations that will help to clarify the meaning of this text.

The effect of Alvin's funeral on the Smith family

Alvin's funeral was conducted by a Presbyterian clergyman named Benjamin B. Stockton. This detail raises the strong possibility that someone in the Smith household had an affiliation with the Presbyterian church by November 1823 (Stockton did not become the official pastor of Palmyra's Western Presbyterian Church until 18 February 1824). Indeed, in one of William Smith's recountings of Church history he seems very clearly to say that his mother and some of his siblings were members of the Presbyterian church at the time of Alvin's funeral. And in another recounting he states that they had this affiliation in the year 1820.

Did Lucy Mack Smith state when she joined the Presbyterians?

Lucy does not say when she joined the Presbyterians

Lucy Mack Smith does not say in her autobiography that she actually joined with the religious group that was composed of "all the churches". She only says that she desired to join with them. She may well have already been associated with the Presbyterians.

Lucy was baptized first and THEN in 1820 she formally joined a denomination

One Presbyterian author claims that "when Lucy reached Palmyra, she developed a connection with the Presbyterian church, even though she held aloof from membership." As support for this assertion, he cites Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 11-13 and notes that "Solomon Mack, Lucy's father, was a Universalist during her childhood but converted to orthodox Christianity in 1810." The author does not clarify the nature of Lucy's connection to the Presbyterian church after her arrival in Palmyra. Although he notes that Lucy "had sought spiritual comfort from a noted Presbyterian minister" while in Randolph, Vermont (citing Lucy's autobiography), he fails to note that this same autobiography provides the timeframe for when she was baptized. She says, "I concluded that my mind would be easier if I were baptized and I found a minister who was willing to baptize me and leave me free from membership in any church after which I pursued the same course until my oldest son [Alvin] attained his 22nd year" - which took place on 11 February 1820.

The "revival" mentioned by Lucy occurs one year prior to the 1824 revival

The "great revival in religion" that is mentioned in Mother Smith's autobiography appears to take place not long after Alvin's death in November 1823. In fact, it seems that it was Alvin's death that instigated this particular event. A disparity in timeframes (a one-year gap) calls any perceived connection between this event and Palmyra's 1824-25 revival into doubt. A ministerial eyewitness says that nothing much like a recognizable revival even took place in the village of Palmyra until December 1824 (The Methodist Magazine, vol. 8, no. 4, April 1825). Mother Smith does not mention any conversions during the December 1823 denomination-welding event which she describes while the December 1824 revival garnered more than 150 converts who joined themselves with various separate churches.

Lucy's family was suspended from fellowship in the Presbyterian church in March 1830

Church records confirm that Lucy's family was suspended from fellowship in the Western Presbyterian Church of Palmyra on March 10, 1830. The charge was 18 months of inactivity, which indicates that they had not attended since September 1828. This was one year after Joseph had received the plates.

Joseph's actions support the First Vision account of his relatives joining the Presbyterians

Joseph Smith's comments to his mother about joining "any" church are significant. He said that taking such an action would be a mistake because of what was in the hearts of the adherents. During the First Vision the Lord told Joseph that the hearts of the members of the Christian denominations were far from Him (1832 account). Joseph also told his mother that if she did decide to join one of the churches she would not be long with them. This make perfect sense when it is remembered that just a few months prior to this time Joseph had informed his family that an angel had told him about golden plates and indicated that God was about to reveal "a more perfect knowledge of the plan of salvation and the redemption of the human family" (Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, rev. ed. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996], chapter 18).

The facts contained within the primary source documents do not support the conclusions of the critics. Joseph Smith said that his mother and siblings were members of the Presbyterian church in 1820 when he had the First Vision and the writings of his mother and brother support that statement. Joseph Smith was not in a state of confusion or bent on deception when he recorded the occurrences of his past. Readers of the Prophet's history can have confidence in what is presented before them.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 18 ( Index of claims ) Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 240. ( Index of claims ) MormonThink.com website (as of 5 May 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm Wesley Walters. [citation needed] Wikipedia article "First Vision"–Primary editors: COgden and John Foxe, with additional contributions by multiple editors. ( FAIR's Analysis of this Wikipedia article) John A. Matzko, "The Encounter of Young Joseph Smith with Presbyterianism," Dialogue 40/3 (2007): 70-71.

What religious excitement was occurring in Palmyra in 1820?

Pearl of Great Price Central, Joseph Smith - History Insight #7: Religious Excitement near Palmyra, New York, 1816–1820

Methodist camp meetings were being held in Palmyra in 1820

Some claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it" Joseph Smith—History 1:5 Joseph Smith talked of observing, as a 14-year-old, "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion" in the Palmyra area during the Spring of 1820. Joseph notes that "It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country."

Abundant evidence of religious excitement exists to substantiate Joseph’s account. This has been thoroughly summarized by Pearl of Great Price Central. Their analysis may be accessed by clicking on the hyperlinked text.

One should keep in mind that Joseph Smith never used the term "revival" in his description - he simply described it as "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion." To a 14 year old who had been concerned about religion starting at age 12 after the 1817 revival, the ongoing camp meetings in the town in which he lived would certainly qualify.

Was there no mention of revival activity in 1820 in the newspaper?

References to regional revival activity in the Palmyra Register, a newspaper which Joseph's family would have read, are clearly evident

A Presbyterian historian on Wikipedia comments on this FAIR Wiki article:

FAIR disagrees with your assessment and stubbornly holds to an 1820 date, Methodist camp meetings as interdenominational revivals, no date conflation, and local newspapers not reporting local news. The FAIR page never suggests that the time and place of the interdenominational religious awakening is irrelevant...

Indeed, we "stubbornly hold" to the 1820 date, and we do not consider the time and place of religious awakening irrelevant. This claim by critics that there is no record of revival activity in the region surrounding Palmyra during the 1820 timeframe has simply not stood up to historical scrutiny. References to regional revival activity in the Palmyra Register, a newspaper which Joseph's family would have read, are clearly evident. While these revivals did not occur in Palmyra itself, their mention in the local newspaper would have given Joseph Smith the sense that there was substantial revival activity in the region.

• GREAT REVIVALS IN RELIGION. The religious excitement which has for some months prevailed in the towns of this vicinity...This is a time the prophets desired to see, but they never saw it....—Palmyra Register, June 7, 1820 (Ballston, NY - 196 miles away from Palmyra)
• REVIVAL. A letter from Homer [N.Y.] dated May 29, received in this town, states, that 200 persons had been hopefully converted in that town since January first; 100 of whom had been added to the Baptist church. The work was still progressing.—Palmyra Register, August 16, 1820 (Homer, NY - 76 miles away from Palmyra)
• REVIVALS OF RELIGION. "The county of Saratoga, for a long time, has been as barren of revivals of religion, as perhaps any other part of this state. It has been like 'the mountains of Gilboa, on which were neither rain nor dew.' But the face of the country has been wonderfully changed of late. The little cloud made its first appearance at Saratoga Springs last summer. As the result of this revival about 40 have made a public profession of religion in Rev. Mr. Griswold's church....A revival has just commenced in the town of Nassau, a little east of Albany. It has commenced in a very powerful manner....—Palmyra Register, September 13, 1820 (Saratoga, NY - 193 miles away from Palmyra)
• FROM THE RELIGIOUS REMEMBRANCER A SPIRITUAL HARVEST. "I wish you could have been with us yesterday. I had the pleasure to witness 80 persons receive the seal of the covenant, in front of our Church. Soon after 135 persons, new members, were received into full communion. All the first floor of the Church was cleared; the seats and pews were all crowded with the members...Palmyra Register, October 4, 1820 (Bloomingsgrove, NY - 209 miles away from Palmyra)

There wasn't even any mention of the 1818 revival in Palmrya in the local newspaper

Critics often wish to place the revival which Joseph spoke about in 1818. However, even though we know that a revival occurred in Palmyra during June 1818, there is no mention of it in the town paper, despite the fact that it was attended by Robert R. Roberts, who was one of "only three Methodist bishops in North America."

Once again, the commonality of such an event did not ensure that it would get a mention—yet, by the critics' same argument, this "silence" in the newspaper should mean that the 1818 revival didn't happen either.

What evidence of religious excitement is there from non-Mormon sources?

Pearl of Great Price Central, Joseph Smith - History Insight #7: Religious Excitement near Palmyra, New York, 1816–1820

Evidence of religious excitement from non-Mormon sources

Non-Mormon evidence demonstrates that there was a considerable increase in membership among some Christian sects. One source goes so far as to point out the growth over a given period without explicit revivals:

1817 to 1830 increase from 6 to 80 without revival, in a particular circuit (emphasis added).

David Marks was born the same year as Joseph Smith, 1805. His parents moved to Junius, not far from Palmyra, when he was a teenager. He became very religious very early, and left home to become an itinerant Baptism minister. He published his memoirs in 1831. Here are some things he has to say about happenings in Junius and Phelps [Vienna], in 1819:

In the fall of the year 1818, upon relating my experience to the Calvinistic Baptist church in Junius, they received me as a candidate for baptism;….

I continued to attend the Baptist covenant meetings, and was treated with the same studied coldness as before. Six months had passed [i.e., sometime in spring 1819], since the church received me as a candidate for baptism,….

In the month of July, 1819, Elder Zabulon Dean, and his companion, having heard of my situation, and feeling interested, sent an appointment to our neighborhood; and came thirty miles, accompanied by brother Samuel Wire, then an unordained preacher, Deacon C., and Brother S. They were all Free-Will Baptists, and the first of whom I had any knowledge. On Saturday, July 10th, I meet with them, learned their sentiments, spirit and humility; which so well accorded with my own views and feelings, that desiring to be baptized, I related to them my experience and sentiments, also the manner in which my application to unite with the Baptist church had been received and afterwards rejected. They expressed satisfaction with my experience, approved of my sentiments, and the next day, being the Sabbath, a meeting was appointed for preaching and examination, at the house where the Baptist church usually met for worship (29).

On the 17th of the same month [July 1819], I attended the Benton Quarterly Meeting of the Free-Will Baptists, in the town of Phelps, eighteen miles from my father’s, and was there received a member of the church in that place. Five were baptized, communion and washing feet attended to, and a profitable season was enjoyed. After this, Elder Dean and brother Wire frequently preached in Junius, and a good reformation followed their labors; in which some of my former persecutors were converted to the faith of the gospel. In the ensuing autumn, brother Wire was ordained. He and Elder Dean baptized fifteen in Junius, who united with the church in Phelps; but in January following [1820], they were dismissed and acknowledged a church in Junius, taking the scriptures for their only rule of faith and practice. Being absent at the time of its organization, I did not become one of its members till the ensuing Spring. This church walked in gospel order several months, and enjoyed many happy seasons. But the summer of prosperity passed, and the winter of adversity succeeded. New and unexpected trials brought heaviness and mourning. Seven or eight, who first united and were well engaged, soon turned aside after Satan and walked no more with us. Iniquity abounding, the love of some waxed cold. Every feeling of my soul was pained, when those with whom I had taken sweet counsel, thus wounded the innocent cause of Jesus and brought it into reproach. But while our number decreased by [31] excommunications, the Lord more than supplied the vacancies by adding to the church of such as should be saved.

Clearly, there was extensive religious excitement in the Palmyra area. A young man of Joseph's age was likewise much taken by it, as Joseph himself was.

What was happening in Joseph's area in 1820

Joseph states that about 1820 "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion" had commenced, and that "[i]t commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country." The Palmyra newspaper reported many conversions in the "burned-over" district. The Palmyra Register recorded that the Methodists had a religious camp meeting in 1820. Since they did not have a chapel yet, they would meet in the woods on Vienna Road. Pomeroy Tucker (a witness hostile to Joseph Smith) states that "protracted revival meetings were customary in some of the churches, and Smith frequented those of different denominations…" These revivals in 1820 must have helped the Methodists, for they were able to build their first church in Palmyra by 1822, down on Vienna Road where they held their camp meetings. The Zion Episcopal Church was originated in 1823. In 1817, the Presbyterians were able to split into an eastern group and a western group. The eastern group used the only actual church building that was in Palmyra in 1820, while the western group assembled in the town hall.

Were revivals and religious excitement too common to be noticed in the newspapers?

Pearl of Great Price Central, Joseph Smith - History Insight #7: Religious Excitement near Palmyra, New York, 1816–1820

One report of a Methodist camp meeting in Palmyra only made it into the local newspaper because of a fatality due to alcohol consumption

Ironically, evidence for local religious meetings was less likely to be documented in the newspapers because they were so common. One report of a Methodist camp meeting in Palmyra only made it into the local newspaper because of a fatality due to alcohol consumption. The paper, in a less politically correct time, pointed out that the deceased was Irish and had died due to alcohol at the Camp-ground outside Palmyra:

The deceased, we are informed, arrived at Mr. McCollum's house the evening preceding, from a camp-meeting which was held in this vicinity, in a state of intoxication....It is supposed he obtained his liquor, which was no doubt the cause of his death, at the Camp-ground, where, it is a notorious fact, the intemperate, the lewd and dissolute part of community too frequently resort for no better object, than to gratify their base propensities.

The Methodists strenuously objected to the implication that their camp meetings where places where people came to get drunk. The Palmyra Register printed a clarification about a week later:

By this expression we did not mean to insinuate, that he obtained it within the enclosure of their place of worship, or that he procured it of them, but at the grog-shops that were established at, or near if you please, their camp-ground. It was far from our intention to charge the Methodists with retailing ardent spirits while professedly met for the worship of their God.

Thus, Joseph's recollection of religious excitement in Palmyra is confirmed at the very edge of the Spring of 1820; very close to the time when he said he prayed to God about religion.

Did Joseph Smith simply conflate elements of the 1818 and 1824-25 revivals in his story of the First Vision?

Pearl of Great Price Central, Joseph Smith - History Insight #7: Religious Excitement near Palmyra, New York, 1816–1820

There is documentary evidence that shows abundant religious activity in the region surrounding Palmyra, New York during the 1819-1820 time period

Some critics and armchair scholars have come to the conclusion that some of the revival story elements found in Joseph Smith's 1838 historical narrative are not really accurate, but rather are representative of a conflation of facts. These people believe that Joseph Smith was actually mixing parts of 1818 and 1824-25 Palmyra revival activities into his storyline about what happened in 1820. In other words, they claim that the Prophet's narrative is not historically accurate - but not deceptively so.

The problem with the 'conflation theory' is two-fold: (1) It can be demonstrated that one of the most important pieces of documentary evidence which is used to support this theory does not actually say what some people think it says - see the FAIRwiki paper called Conflation of 1824-25 revival?. See also the Insight from Pearl of Great Price Central linked above. (2) There is plenty of documentary evidence that shows abundant revival activity in the general region surrounding Palmyra, New York during an 1819-1820 time period. A careful examination of Joseph Smith's 1838 narrative reveals that three distinct zones of revival activity are being referred to by him and each of these can be confirmed in non-LDS newspapers and ecclesiastical sources. When all of these sources are taken into account the idea of conflation loses most of its strength.

Palmyra Register (1820): "It was far from our intention to charge the Methodists with retailing ardent spirits while professedly met for the worship of their God"

28 June 1820: "The deceased, we are informed, arrived...from a camp-meeting which was held in this vicinity, in a state of intoxication"

Palmyra Register, 28 June 1820:

Effects of Drunkenness--DIED at the house of Mr. Robert McCollum, in this town, on the 26th inst. James Couser, aged about forty years. The deceased, we are informed, arrived at Mr. McCollum's house the evening preceding, from a camp-meeting which was held in this vicinity, in a state of intoxication. He, with his companion who was also in the same debasing condition, called for supper, which was granted. They both stayed the night--called for breakfast next morning--when notified that it was ready, the deceased was found wrestling with his companion, who he flung with the greatest ease,--he suddenly sunk down upon a bench,--was taken with an epileptic fit, and immediately expired.--It is supposed he obtained his liquor, which was no doubt the cause of his death, at the Camp-ground, where, it is a notorious fact, the intemperate, the lewd and dissolute part of community too frequently resort for no better object, than to gratify their base propensities.

The deceased, who was an Irishman, we understand has left a family, living at Catskill this state.

Mention of "the Camp-ground" did not endear the paper to the local Methodists, who objected to the implication that this (the location of their worship services) was the site of drinking to excess and a place of gathering by the "dissolute part" of the community. An article appeared in the same paper a week later which said:

5 July 1820: "Methodists...we did not mean to insinuate, that he obtained it within the enclosure of their place of worship"

Palmyra Register, 5 July 1820

"Plain Truth" is received. By this communication, as well as by the remarks of some of our neighbors who belong to the Society of Methodists, we perceive that our remarks accompanying the notice of the unhappy death of James Couser, contained in our last, have not been correctly understood. "Plain truth" says, we committed "an error in point of fact," in saying that Couser "obtained his liquor at the camp-ground." By this expression we did not mean to insinuate, that he obtained it within the enclosure of their place of worship, or that he procured it of them, but at the grog-shops that were established at, or near if you please, their camp-ground. It was far from our intention to charge the Methodists with retailing ardent spirits while professedly met for the worship of their God. Neither did we intend to implicate them by saying that "the intemperate, the dissolute, &c. resort to their meetings."--And if so we have been understood by any one of that society, we assure them they have altogether mistaken our meaning.

Benajah Williams (1820): "Had a two Days meeting at Sq Bakers in Richmond. Br. Wright being gone to campmeeting on Ridgeway circuit I expected to find Br. J. Hayes at the Meeting"

In July 1820, a minister named Benajah Williams wrote the following of a camp meeting at a site only twenty-eight miles from Palmyra:

"Sat. 15th10 Had a two Days meeting at Sq Bakers in Richmond. Br. Wright being gone to campmeeting on Ridgeway circuit I expected to find Br. J. Hayes at the Meeting & calculated to get him to take the lead of the meeting but when on my way to meeting met him going to conference & tried to get him to return but he thout[sic] not best as his horse was young, he said he could not ride through by conference by the time it commenced Then I thout what shall I do I shall have to take the lead at the meeting & do the p- (preaching) but the Lord prepaired him self a preacher it rained powerfully until 11 o’clock so that I was verry wet I called with some of the Brtheren at Br. Eldredges11 and took dinner then rode to the place appointed for meeting. & found Br. Lane a Presiding Elder from Susquehanna District with five more preachers. Br. Warner p. on Sat. Br. Griffing exhorted. We had a good prayer meeting at six in the evening."

"Sab. 16th Our Lovefeast began at 9 & the Lord was present to bless & we had a shout in the camp. Br E Bibbins p- at 11 from…the lord attended the word & the people were satisfied with the Sermons. Br. Lane exhorted and spoke on Gods method in bringing about Reffermations [sic] his word was with as from the authority of God. & not as the Areons. After him Br. Griffin with life & energy & Br. Vose closed the Meeting after with some of the Brethren dined with Br. W. E…."

Did Gordon B. Hinckley cite false information regarding an 1820 Palmyra revival in a book called Truth Restored?

The evidence does not suggest that this was an attempt to deceive, but simply an error that was perpetuated between multiple authors

It is claimed that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, and that Gordon B. Hinckley cited false information regarding an 1820 revival in a book called Truth Restored. The material found in Truth Restored was written in 1947 under the title What of the Mormons? It was written as an introduction to the Church for non-members when Gordon B. Hinckley was a 37-year-old employee of the Church.

Several chapters were later reprinted as Truth Restored. The relevant material reads as follows:

This condition among the people of the frontier areas of America became a matter of serious concern to religious leaders. A crusade was begun to "convert the unconverted." It was carried over a vast area from the New England states to Kentucky. In 1820 it reached western New York. The ministers of the various denominations united in their efforts, and many conversions were made among the scattered settlers. One week a Rochester paper noted: "More than two hundred souls have become hopeful subjects of divine grace in Palmyra, Macedon, Manchester, Lyons, and Ontario since the late revival commenced." The week following it was able to report "that in Palmyra and Macedon . . . more than four hundred souls have already confessed that the Lord is good."

The source for this claim is Preston Nibley, Joseph Smith the Prophet (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1946), pp. 21-22. Nibley, in turn is quoting from Willard Bean, A. B. C. History of Palmyra and the Beginning of "Mormonism (1938). Bean writes:

In the year 1819 a sort of religious awakening... spread... After reaching New York it spread to the rural districts upstate, reaching Palmyra and vicinity in the Spring of 1820.... The revival started the latter part of April [1820]... which gave the farmers a chance to attend the meetings... By the first of May, the revival was well under way with scores of people confessing religion... The revival had been even more successful than the ministers had anticipated. I quote from the Religious Advocate of Rochester: 'More than 200 souls have become hopeful subjects of divine grace in Palmyra, Macedon, Manchester, Lyons and Ontario since the late revival commenced. This is a powerful work. It is among young as well as old people.... A week later [also from the 'Religious Advocate' of Rochester]... 'It may be added that in Palmyra and Macedon, including Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist churches, more than 400 have already confessed that the Lord is good. The work is still progressing. In neighboring towns, the number is great and still increasing. Glory be to God on high; and on earth peace and good will to all men.'"

This is almost certainly a miscitation

Yet, as the Reverend Wesley Walters pointed out in his article which attempted to dispute the existence of a revival, this is almost certainly a miscitation, since the quoted newspaper did not begin publication until 1825.

Thus, Gordon Hinckley (1947) quoted a line from Nibley (1946), who was quoting from Bean (1938) that was in error. It is important to remember, however, that then-Bro. Hinckley's book was not intended to be a scholarly treatise, but was an introduction to the basics of Church history. The material from 1947 was later reprinted as Truth Restored.

Despite the miscitation, there actually is, however, evidence of religious excitement in Palmyra in 1820

Despite the claims of Walters and other critics, modern research has demonstrated that there were religious meeting in the Palmyra area in 1820. The cited newspaper article did not apply to the 1820 events, but other reports are known today which would make the same point.

The evidence does not suggest that this was an attempt to deceive, but simply an error that was perpetuated between multiple authors.

Anti-Mormon authors should be well aware of this phenomenon—anti-Mormon arguments are constantly recycled and requoted by their successors, with little heed given to LDS responses or the primary sources. In this respect, the Church has done better than the critics—the current brief introduction to Church history, Our Heritage, quotes no newspapers about the 1820 revival.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 40,348n123. ( Index of claims ) (Abanes cites pp. 1-2 for his claim.)

Christofferson (2013): "Critics have also claimed that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York, area in 1820"

Elder D. Todd Christofferson, at a BYU Idaho devotional in 2013:

Critics have also claimed that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York, area in 1820, as Joseph Smith reported in his history. With today’s greater access to original sources, including the Palmyra Register newspaper, there is ample evidence of religious revivals in the area during 1820 and some years prior. It appears that the Methodists had a regularly used camp meeting ground, and that revivals were common enough that often they garnered no coverage in the newspapers unless something out of the ordinary occurred such as a death. (Footnote 12)

⍗

Learn more about religious excitement in the time of Joseph Smith's First Vision

Wiki links	Doesn't mention revival?
Online	Donald L. Enders, "A Snug Log House," Ensign (August 1985): 16.off-site Steven C. Harper, "Evaluating Three Arguments Against Joseph Smith's First Vision," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 2/2 (12 October 2012). [17–34] link D. Michael Quinn, "Joseph Smith's Experience of a Methodist 'Camp-Meeting'," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought - Dialogue Paperless: E-Paper #3 (12 July 2006), PDF link
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young First Vision

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 35, 340 n.77. ( Index of claims ) Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 15 ( Index of claims ) Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 240. ( Index of claims ) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 166–171.( Index of claims ) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?, 5th edition, (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 143–162-D. MormonThink.com website (as of 5 May 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm Wesley P. Walters, “Joseph’s First Vision Story Undermined,” The Quarterly Journal of Watchman Fellowship (January–March 1988), 4. Wesley P. Walters, Joseph Smith’s Move to Palmyra and Manchester, NY (A Preliminary Report) (unpublished, 1990). H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record (Salt Lake City, Utah: Smith Research Associates [distributed by Signature Books], 1994), [citation needed]. Wesley P. Walters, "New Light on Mormon Origins From the Palmyra Revival," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 4 no. 1 (Spring 1969), 60–81. Wikipedia article "First Vision"–Primary editors: COgden and John Foxe, with additional contributions by multiple editors. ( FAIR's Analysis of this Wikipedia article)

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

Brigham Young University-Idaho Devotional, "The Prophet Joseph Smith"

Elder D. Todd Christofferson,  Brigham Young University-Idaho Devotional, (24 September 2013)

Critics have also claimed that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York, area in 1820, as Joseph Smith reported in his history. With today’s greater access to original sources, including the Palmyra Register newspaper, there is ample evidence of religious revivals in the area during 1820 and some years prior. It appears that the Methodists had a regularly used camp meeting ground, and that revivals were common enough that often they garnered no coverage in the newspapers unless something out of the ordinary occurred such as a death. (Footnote 12)

Click here to view the complete article

Response to claim: 30 - The author states that “as of 1820, Joseph Smith was teaching that the Father and the Son both had physical bodies”

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that “as of 1820, Joseph Smith was teaching that the Father and the Son both had physical bodies...”

Author's sources: Not provided.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

Joseph Smith wasn’t teaching anything in 1820. He wasn’t teaching anything until the Book of Mormon was translated and published in 1830, ten years later.

Response to claim: 30 - The author states that the “early documents of Mormonism show that during the 1820s and early 1830s, Smith was teaching there was only one God”

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that the “early documents of Mormonism show that during the 1820s and early 1830s, Smith was teaching there was only one God.”

Author's sources: Not provided.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

1. REDIRECT Historical Challenges to the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision

Response to claim: 30 - Joseph Smith’s “plural god doctrine was not put forward until the 1840s in Nauvoo, Illinois”

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Joseph Smith’s “plural god doctrine was not put forward until the 1840s in Nauvoo, Illinois.”

Author's sources: Doctrine and Covenants (Kirtland, Ohio: F.G. Williams & Co., 1835), 52-58. See also Tanner, ‘’Mormonism-Shadow or Reality?’’ 143-62.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The Book of Mormon, published in 1830, has many passages which distinguish between God the Father and his son Jesus Christ (just as the Bible does). However, the author here appears to be referring to "gods" other than the Father and the Son. This refers to the King Follett discourse, in which Joseph talked about the nature of God and the existence of other gods.

Ensign (This reprint was taken from the Documentary History of the Church, vol. 6, pages 302–17), "The King Follett Sermon"

Joseph Smith, Jr.,  Ensign (This reprint was taken from the Documentary History of the Church, vol. 6, pages 302–17), (May 1971)

In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted [prepared] a plan to create the world and people it. When we begin to learn this way, we begin to learn the only true God, and what kind of a being we have got to worship. Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach Him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer.

Click here to view the complete article

Response to claim: 30 - In Joseph’s 1832 First Vision account, he said he was fifteen when “the Lord” appeared to him==

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

In Joseph’s 1832 First Vision account, he said he was fifteen when “the Lord” appeared to him. Not only is his age different, but he described only one being, as opposed to the ‘two personages’ he had previously accounted for, in the vision.”

Author's sources: Joseph Smith’s 1832 history

FAIR's Response

First Vision | Alleged Contradictions

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unmasked/Chapter 3

Critics have routinely asserted that Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision contain contradictions. This page gathers all the alleged "contradictions" and clarifies each, showing that Joseph Smith's accounts can easily be harmonized. Critics have challenged the First Vision on other grounds. They argue that there are embellishments and that there are historical anachronisms in the accounts. If you do not find what you're looking for on this page, be sure to visit those two pages that address embellishments or historical anachronisms.

---

One or Two Personages?

Joseph Smith wrote several accounts of the First Vision. In his earliest written account from 1832, he speaks clearly about seeing “the Lord.” In later accounts, especially those from 1835 and 1838, he says that he saw two personages—God the Father and Jesus Christ. Some people claim this means Joseph changed his story. A closer look shows there are good reasons for the difference.

1. The 1832 Account Does Not Leave God the Father Out

Even though Joseph does not clearly describe God the Father appearing in the 1832 account, he still refers to Him. At the start of the history, Joseph says that the First Vision was when he was “receiving the testimony from on high.” In Joseph’s later accounts, that “testimony” is when God the Father introduces Jesus Christ and tells Joseph who He is.

In the Bible and other scripture, a voice that comes “from heaven” or “from on high” usually means God the Father. Joseph used this same kind of language both before and after 1832. Because of this, many scholars believe Joseph understood the voice “from on high” to be the Father, even if he did not describe seeing Him clearly in that part of the story.

There is also a line in the 1832 account that says, “the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.” Some readers think this could mean two beings—one who opens the heavens and another who appears.

2. Scripture Often Describes Visions This Way

Joseph’s way of writing in 1832 matches how visions are described in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. In the Book of Mormon, Lehi sees God on His throne, but Jesus Christ is the one who comes down and speaks to him. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul describes seeing Jesus Christ in a vision, but he does not say he saw God the Father.

Joseph appears to have modeled part of his 1832 account after Paul’s experience. Since Paul focused on Christ and not the Father, Joseph may have done the same in his first written telling.

3. The 1832 Account Focuses on Jesus Christ

In the 1832 account, the main message is that Joseph’s sins were forgiven. In later accounts, Jesus Christ is the one who delivers that message after the Father introduces Him. This suggests that Joseph focused on Jesus in 1832 because Jesus was the one speaking to him and forgiving his sins. The account is centered on what mattered most to Joseph at that moment.

4. Writing Was Harder for Joseph Than Speaking

Joseph wrote the 1832 account himself, and it was the first time he tried to write his life story. Later accounts were mostly spoken and written down by others. Joseph once said that writing felt limiting and difficult for him. Because of this, the 1832 account is shorter and less detailed. As time went on, Joseph became better at explaining what happened and used clearer language.

5. The Accounts Are More Alike Than Different

Three of Joseph’s four main accounts clearly say that two personages appeared. The 1832 account can still be read in a way that fits with the others. The differences mostly come from what Joseph chose to emphasize, not from changing what he experienced.

Fire or Light?

Critics sometimes argue that Joseph Smith contradicted himself by saying that a “pillar of fire” appeared in some accounts of the First Vision and a “pillar of light” in others. A closer look at scripture, language, and Joseph’s own explanations shows that this difference is not a real contradiction.

First, in the Bible and other scriptures, fire and light are often used to describe the same divine presence. God appears to Moses in a burning bush that gives light but does not burn the bush (Exodus 3). The Lord leads Israel with a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day (Exodus 13:21), showing that fire can function as a source of light. Heavenly beings are also described as shining, glowing, or appearing “like fire.” Because of this, describing a divine manifestation as either “fire” or “light” fits well within biblical language.

Second, Joseph’s own descriptions connect fire and light, rather than treating them as opposites. In the 1832 account, he says he saw a “pillar of fire, light above the brightness of the sun at noon day.” This wording already blends the two ideas. Joseph appears to be using familiar biblical imagery to describe something intensely bright and powerful, not trying to give a scientific description of its physical makeup.

Third, different words can describe the same experience, especially when someone is trying to put an extraordinary event into ordinary language. A blazing light can look like fire. Fire itself gives off light. When Joseph told or wrote about his experience in different settings and for different audiences, he used different words that pointed to the same reality—a brilliant, heavenly manifestation coming from God.

Fourth, Joseph’s later accounts aim for clarity, not correction. As he retold the story over time, he often chose words that would help listeners better understand what he saw. “Light” may have been clearer and less confusing than “fire” for later audiences, especially since the pillar did not burn anything. This is the same way people today might describe the same event differently depending on context, without contradicting themselves.

In short, the use of “pillar of fire” in one account and “pillar of light” in another reflects biblical style, natural language variation, and growing clarity, not a contradiction. Both expressions describe the same overwhelming divine glory and are completely consistent with each other and with scripture.

The Lord or an Angel?

Critics have occasionally asserted that early Latter-day Saint sources understood Joseph Smith’s First Vision to involve only an angel rather than God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is based on selective quotations from early leaders, secondary retellings, and the use of the term angel in some historical contexts. Joseph Smith’s own early accounts also contribute to the confusion. In his 1835 journal, Joseph referred to his youthful experiences as involving the “first visitation of angels” and stated that “many angels” were present. Importantly, the same account also explicitly describes the appearance of two personages, one of whom testified that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. A careful examination of the primary sources, however, shows that these references do not reflect a doctrinal misunderstanding of the First Vision, but instead arise from differences in terminology, abbreviated retellings, and occasional conflation of distinct visionary events.

Oliver Cowdery

Oliver Cowdery wrote an early history of Joseph Smith in 1834–1835 for a Church newspaper called the Messenger and Advocate. Critics often point to this account to claim that Cowdery believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. A closer and simpler reading of Cowdery’s writing shows that this conclusion goes beyond what Cowdery actually said.

In his account, Cowdery explained that Joseph Smith was confused by the many churches around him and wanted to know whether God really existed. Joseph prayed, and an angel appeared and told him that his sins were forgiven. Cowdery then moved directly into a story that closely matches later accounts of the angel Moroni and the gold plates. Because Cowdery did not clearly separate these events, some readers assume he believed there was only one vision.

However, Cowdery’s goal was not to give a detailed timeline of every vision Joseph experienced. He was writing a brief introduction to Joseph Smith’s calling as a prophet for readers who already believed Joseph was inspired by God. To keep the story simple, Cowdery combined Joseph’s early spiritual experiences into one shortened account focused on forgiveness and calling.

Cowdery even corrected himself in a later issue after realizing he had listed the wrong age for Joseph. This shows that the history was informal and not meant to be a carefully edited record. At no point did Cowdery say that Joseph had only one vision, nor did he deny later accounts that describe God the Father and Jesus Christ appearing to Joseph.

Cowdery’s writing also fits well with Joseph Smith’s own 1832 account, which focused more on Joseph seeking forgiveness than on explaining exactly who appeared to him. At the time, people often used the word angel in a general way to describe messages from heaven.

There is no evidence that Oliver Cowdery rejected or misunderstood the First Vision. His use of the word angel reflects a short, simplified retelling of Joseph Smith’s early experiences, not a different belief about what Joseph actually saw.

Brigham Young

Critics sometimes claim that Brigham Young believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is usually based on a short quotation taken from one of Young’s sermons, where he said, “The Lord did not come… but He did send His angel.” When read by itself, this line can sound like Brigham Young was denying the First Vision as it is taught today. However, reading the full sermon shows that this interpretation is incorrect:

The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him. (Journal of Discourses 2:170-171)

In the full statement, Brigham Young was not saying that the Lord never came to Joseph Smith. Instead, he was explaining how the Lord chose to reveal Himself. Young specifically said that the Lord did not come “with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory.” In other words, God did not appear with overwhelming display, grandeur, or force. Instead, He worked through humble means that matched Joseph Smith’s situation and character.

Brigham Young then explained that the Lord “did send His angel” to Joseph Smith. Importantly, the sentence continues by saying that the Lord informed Joseph that he should not join any of the religious sects because they were all wrong. Grammatically and logically, Brigham Young is describing the angel as the messenger, while the message itself comes from the Lord. This fits well with how divine communication is described throughout the Bible, where God often teaches or commands through angels.

It is also important to remember that Joseph Smith experienced multiple angelic visitations, especially from the angel Moroni. Brigham Young frequently spoke in broad, summarized language about Joseph’s early calling, often blending different events together to make a general point about divine authority rather than to give a detailed history lesson. His sermon was focused on showing that God chose a humble young man and guided him step by step, not on listing every vision in precise order.

There is strong evidence elsewhere that Brigham Young accepted Joseph Smith’s account of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ. He taught openly that God the Father and the Son were separate beings and fully supported Joseph Smith’s prophetic testimony. The selective use of one sentence from a longer sermon does not reflect Young’s overall beliefs.

When read in full and in context, Brigham Young’s words do not show confusion or disagreement about the First Vision. Instead, they show his effort to explain that God did not appear with dramatic display, but worked through angels and personal revelation to call Joseph Smith in a quiet and humble way.

Lucy Mack Smith

Some critics claim that Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, said his First Vision was only of an angel — and not of God the Father and Jesus Christ. This idea usually comes from a letter she wrote in January 1831. However, when her words are read carefully and in context, it is clear that she was not trying to describe the First Vision itself, and she did not deny that Joseph saw God and Christ. Lucy’s letter was not written to explain every vision Joseph had. Instead, she wrote it to introduce the Book of Mormon to her siblings and explain how that book came forth. In that letter, she quoted language that closely matches a passage in the Church’s Articles and Covenants (Doctrine and Covenants 20:5–8) — language that refers to God ministering to Joseph by an angel who gave him commandments and assistance to translate the plates.

Critics sometimes point to this and say Lucy was referring to the First Vision. But her letter does not say that the visit of the angel was Joseph’s first spiritual experience, nor does it suggest that he only saw an angel instead of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Instead, her wording reflects the common devotional style and biblical language of the time — where an angel is described as a messenger of God who brings instruction or revelation.

In her letter, Lucy actually echoes Doctrine & Covenants 20, received in 1830, that already assumes the First Vision had taken place and that Joseph had received a mission from the Lord. The letter closely paraphrases that text.

• D&C 20:5-8 (April 1830)

(verse 5) "After it was truly manifested unto this first elder [i.e., Joseph Smith] that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world; (verse 6) But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness; (verse 7) And gave unto him commandments which inspired him; (verse 8) And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon."(D&C 20꞉5-8

Compare this with Mother Smith's letter:

• LUCY'S LETTER (January 1831)

"Joseph, after repenting of his sins and humbling himself before God, was visited by an holy angel whose countenance was as lightning and whose garments were white above all whiteness, who gave unto him commandments which inspired him from on high; and who gave unto him, by the means of which was before prepared, that he should translate this book."

Compare both of the above sources with the Prophet's 1832 First Vision narrative:

• FIRST VISION ACCOUNT (September–November 1832)

"I felt to mourn for my own sins....[The Lord said during the First Vision,] 'thy sins are forgiven thee'....after many days I fell into transgression and sinned in many things....I called again upon the Lord and he shewed unto me a heavenly vision for behold an angel of the Lord came and stood before me....the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book therefore I commenced translating the characters."

Critics also fail to point out that almost exactly two months before Lucy Mack Smith wrote her letter, four Latter-day Saint missionaries (Oliver Cowdery, Orson Pratt, Peter Whitmer Jr. and Ziba Peterson) were publicly teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God "personally" and had received a commission from Him to preach true religion. It is specifically stated in the newspaper article that records this information that the missionaries made their comments about 1 November 1830 - shortly after the Church was formally organized. Some critics who do acknowledge this newspaper article attempt to dismiss it by calling it a "vague" reference, despite the clear wording that the missionaries taught that Joseph "had seen God frequently and personally."

Although one critic of the Church indicates that the letter was “unpublished until 1906”, he does not indicate where, or by whom. First published by Ben E. Rich, President of the Southern States Mission, the letter has been long available to interested students of Latter-day Saint history.

It should be noted that the Lucy Mack Smith letter was not even available for publication until just shortly before it appeared in print because it was in a descendant's possession. The introduction to the letter published in the Elders' Journal states: "The following very interesting and earnest gospel letter written by Lucy Mack Smith, mother of the Prophet Joseph, to her brother, Solomon Mack and his wife, was presented to President Joseph F. Smith a few weeks ago by Mrs. Candace Mack Barker, of Keene, N[ew] H[ampshire], a grand-daughter of Solomon Mack, to whom the letter is addressed. Mrs. Barker stated that it was her desire to place the letter in the hands of those who would appreciate its contents and preserve it as she felt it properly deserved." The idea that Lucy Mack was trying to hide a First Vision story is not supported by the historical record.

In short, Lucy Mack Smith’s 1831 letter does not say that Joseph’s First Vision was of an angel instead of God and Christ. Instead, she was summarizing part of the early Church’s understanding of how revelation came to Joseph — in this case, through an angelic messenger connected with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon — and she did not intend to give a full history of every heavenly manifestation Joseph experienced.

John Taylor

Some critics point to a statement by John Taylor in an 1879 sermon where he referred to Joseph Smith asking an angel which church was right. They claim this shows that Taylor was confused about the First Vision. While the quotation itself is accurate, it does not show confusion when it is placed in its full historical setting.

“…just as it was when the prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right. What, none of them? No. we will not stop to argue that question; the angel merely told him to join none of them that none of them were right.” (Journal of Discourses vol. 20, p. 167)

John Taylor was deeply familiar with the First Vision account. In fact, he served as the editor of the Church’s newspaper, Times and Seasons, in 1842–1843. During that time, he oversaw the publication of Joseph Smith’s history, which included the clear account of the First Vision describing the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ. It is not reasonable to believe that Taylor could publish this material without understanding or accepting it.

Taylor also had direct involvement with the Pearl of Great Price. The First Vision account was included in the Pearl of Great Price when the Pearl of Great Price was first published in 1851, and John Taylor approved a new American edition in 1878—only one year before the sermon critics quote. This shows that he was well aware of the official First Vision narrative.

On October 7th, 1878, nearly a year and a half before his 1879 sermon, he wrote a letter in behalf of the Quorum of the Twelve commenting upon a book by Edward W. Tullidge entitled Life of Joseph Smith. In that letter, he wrote:

God the Father and Jesus, with the ancient apostles, prophets, patriarchs and men of God have revealed to Joseph Smith principles on which hang the destinies of the world

Even more telling is that on the same day as the 1879 sermon where Taylor used the word angel, he also spoke of the Father, the Son, and Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith:

When Jesus sent forth his servants formerly he sent them to preach this Gospel. When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith, he had a priesthood conferred upon him which he conferred upon others for the purpose of manifesting the laws of life, the Gospel of the Son of God, by direct authority, that light and truth might be spread forth among all nations. (Journal of Discourses 20:257)

This shows that Taylor was not denying or forgetting the First Vision. Instead, he was speaking in a brief and informal way during part of his remarks and then referring more fully to Joseph’s experiences elsewhere.

So why did John Taylor use the word angel at all? The most likely explanation is that he was either speaking generally about divine messengers or using biblical language, where heavenly beings are sometimes called angels even when they act with God’s authority. In the Bible, for example, God Himself is sometimes called an “angel” because the word means messenger.

When all of John Taylor’s writings and sermons are considered together, it becomes clear that he fully understood and taught that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. The single reference to an angel does not reflect confusion, but rather a brief or symbolic use of language taken out of context.

Orson Pratt

Some critics claim that Orson Pratt believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is usually based on a short quote from an 1869 sermon where Pratt said that “God had sent an angel” to Joseph Smith:

“By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him;… This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)

When this short quote is read by itself, it can sound like Pratt misunderstood the First Vision. But reading the full sermon shows that this is not true. In the same sermon, Orson Pratt clearly explained what Joseph Smith said he saw.

By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him; that through his faith, prayers, and sincere repentance he had beheld a supernatural vision, that he had seen a pillar of fire descend from Heaven, and saw two glorious personages clothed upon with this pillar of fire, whose countenance shone like the sun at noonday; that he heard one of these personages say, pointing to the other, ‘This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.’ This occurred before this young man was fifteen years of age; and it was a startling announcement to make in the midst of a generation so completely given up to the traditions of their fathers; and when this was proclaimed by this young, unlettered boy to the priests and the religious societies in the State of New York, they laughed him to scorn. ‘What!’ said they, “visions and revelations in our day! God speaking to men in our day!” They looked upon him as deluded; they pointed the finger of scorn at him and warned their congregations against him. ‘The canon of Scripture is closed up; no more communications are to be expected from Heaven. The ancients saw heavenly visions and personages; they heard the voice of the Lord; they were inspired by the Holy Ghost to receive revelations, but behold no such thing is to be given to man in our day, neither has there been for many generations past.’ This was the style of the remarks made by religionists forty years ago. This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)

Pratt taught that Joseph saw a pillar of fire come down from heaven and that he saw two glorious personages inside that light. He described their faces shining like the sun and said that Joseph heard one of them speak while pointing to the other and saying, “This is my Beloved Son, hear ye him.” This is a clear and accurate description of the First Vision as Joseph Smith later recorded it.

Pratt’s use of the word angel at the beginning of the sermon does not replace or contradict this description. Instead, Pratt was summarizing Joseph’s message to the world in simple terms before explaining the details. In the 1800s, Church leaders often used the word angel to mean a messenger sent by God, especially when speaking to audiences who were unfamiliar with Latter-day Saint beliefs. At the end of the sermon, Pratt also spoke about Joseph Smith being visited “four years afterwards” by another angel. This clearly refers to the visit of the angel Moroni, showing that Pratt understood Joseph Smith had more than one heavenly experience and that these events were separate.

When the full sermon is read, it is clear that Orson Pratt knew and taught that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. The claim that Pratt was confused comes from quoting only a small part of his words and leaving out the section where he gives a detailed and correct explanation of the vision.

Wilford Woodruff

Wilford Woodruff is claimed to have said in an 1855 sermon that the Church had been established in the last days only by "the ministering of an holy angel", and not by the Father and the Son. The following text is the one used by critics of the Church to try and make it look like Apostle Wilford Woodruff taught something other than the traditional storyline of the First Vision.

"That same organization and gospel that Christ died for...is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy angel from God...The angel taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world...He told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of His kingdom in the world"

An examination of the original text of the sermon in question reveals that Wilford Woodruff's words are being taken out of context by critics. The bolded words below show which sections of the paragraph have been selected by detractors to try and rewrite history.

"The gospel has gone forth in our day in its true glory, power, order, and light, as it always did when God had a people among men that He acknowledged. That same organization and gospel that Christ died for, and the Apostles spilled their blood to vindicate, is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy ANGEL from God, out of heaven, who held converse with man, and revealed unto him the darkness that enveloped the world, and unfolded unto him the gross darkness that surrounded the nations, those scenes that should take place in this generation, and would follow each other in quick succession, even unto the coming of the Messiah. The ANGEL taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world; and THE LORD gave him commandments, and sealed upon him the Priesthood, and gave him power to administer the ordinances of the house of the Lord. HE told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of HIS kingdom in the world, that the people had turned away from HIS true order, changed the ordinances, and broken the everlasting covenant, and inherited lies and things wherein their was no profit. HE told him the time had come to lay the foundation for the establishment of the Kingdom of God among men for the last time, preparatory to the winding up scene" (emphasis added).

When critics break the above quotation into pieces in the manner that they have, they create an unrecognized problem for themselves. A careful reading of this material indicates that it was not the angel who told Joseph Smith that "the gospel was not among men"; it was the "the Lord" who provided this information (see the capitalized/italicized words above: ANGEL, THE LORD, HE, HIS). The anti-Mormons have, through their editing of the text, made it falsely appear as if the words of the angel and the Lord were one and the same. Woodruff's quote does not state that it was the angel who told Joseph Smith that "the gospel was not among men"; it was the "the Lord" who provided this information

The attempt to use Wilford Woodruff's words to obscure the details of Mormon history is a misguided one because the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that critics advocate. Elder Woodruff was in the second highest leadership quorum of the Church during the lifetime of Joseph Smith and never once did he mention that the Prophet told two different tales about the founding of the last gospel dispensation.

It is difficult to believe that Elder Wilford Woodruff did not have an accurate knowledge of the traditional First Vision story prior to his 1855 remarks since on 3 February 1842 he became the superintendent of the printing office in Nauvoo, Illinois where the Times and Seasons newspaper was published and remained there through at least 8 November 1843. These dates are significant because in-between them the Prophet Joseph Smith had two separate accounts of the First Vision printed on the pages of the Times and Seasons and so Elder Woodruff would have been the person who was ultimately responsible for their production and distribution.

• Times and Seasons 3 no. 9 (1 March 1842), 706–707. off-site GospeLink [Wentworth Letter First Vision account].
• Times and Seasons 3 no. 11 (1 April 1842), 748–749. off-site GospeLink [History of the Church official First Vision account].

It should also be noted that before Elder Woodruff made his 1855 remarks six other members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles published First Vision accounts: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852). It seems highly unlikely that Elder Woodruff would have remained unaware of these publications, which were made available to the public by his closest associates.

George A. Smith

Apostle George A. Smith said on two separate occasions that Joseph Smith's First Vision was of an "angel"—not of the Father and the Son. However, the argument that George A. Smith was simply not aware of a Father-and-Son First Vision account when he made his "angel" statements is nonsense since it can be shown from a documentary standpoint that he did indeed have prior knowledge of such a thing. An argument of ignorance is also untenable in light of the fact that Brother Smith's close associates in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had published orthodox recitals of the First Vision on nine different occasions long BEFORE he made his verbal missteps at the pulpit: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852).

This does not mean that Brother Smith was not aware of the Father and the Son appearing to the Prophet at the time that he made his anomalous remarks. The following timeline demonstrates that the Prophet's cousin was well aware of the official version of events. His out-of-place comments need to be evaluated from that perspective.

• 7 April 1854: Elder George A. Smith was appointed at General Conference to be the new Church Historian.

• 9 August 1855: Elder George A. Smith wrote to the editor of the Deseret News on 9 August 1855 and gave permission to publish a short Church history that was originally requested for inclusion in a non-Mormon publication, but which ultimately did not appear in print. When Elder Smith told the First Vision story in this history he said that Joseph Smith beheld "two glorious Beings" during the experience. The capitalization of the word "Beings" indicates that the two individuals were considered to be Deity. Elder Smith then went on to tell the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon which, he said, was instigated by an "angel" who was commissioned of God (Deseret News, vol. 5, no. 26, 5 September 1855, 2).

• 15 August 1855: The First Vision account as found in the Wentworth Letter (1 March 1842) was published in Salt Lake City in connection with the official History of the Church. This account speaks of "two glorious personages" and then later speaks of the single "angel" who was involved in revealing the existence of the Book of Mormon plates. Since Elder Smith was the Church Historian at this time he likely would have known about the content of this publication.

• 6 August 1862: Elder George A. Smith's short Church history (see 9 August 1855 above) was reprinted on the pages of the Deseret News. In this First Vision account Elder Smith referred to "two glorious Beings" and then later spoke of the single "angel" who was involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon

• 15 November 1864: In a discourse on historical matters, Elder George A. Smith quoted directly from the official First Vision account, which was first published in the Times and Seasons newspaper on 15 March 1842 and 1 April 1842. Elder Smith recited the line, “This is my Beloved Son, hear Him” – leaving no doubt that he knew the specific identities of the two "personages" who appeared to Joseph Smith during the First Vision event.

• 15 November 1868: President George A. Smith (now a counselor in the First Presidency) accurately related many First Vision story elements - as published in the Church’s official history - but mistakenly mixed them together with several accurate angel Moroni story elements - as published in the Church’s official history. He said:

1. Joseph Smith was 14 or 15 years old

2. There was a revival involving Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists

3. There was a scramble after the revival to secure converts

4. Unpleasant feelings were the result

5. Joseph Smith had attended those meetings

6. Joseph Smith prayed because of James 1:5

7. The Lord sent an angel to Joseph Smith in answer to his prayer

8. Joseph Smith asked the angel which church was right and the angel said they were all wrong

9. The vision was repeated several times and Joseph Smith was commanded to tell his father about it

10. Joseph Smith’s father told him to observe the instructions that were given to him.

• 20 June 1869: President George A. Smith mistakenly mixed together accurate First Vision story elements with accurate angel Moroni story elements. He said:

1. Some members of Joseph Smith’s family joined the Presbyterians

2. Joseph Smith reflected much on religion

3. Joseph Smith was astonished at the bad feelings manifested at the end of the reformation

4. Joseph Smith was led to pray because of James 1:5

5. Joseph Smith had a vision of a holy angel

6. Joseph Smith asked which of the denominations in the vicinity was right

7. Joseph Smith was told that they had all gone astray and wandered into darkness

8. Joseph Smith was instructed not to join any of them

9. Joseph Smith was told that God was about to restore the gospel in its simplicity and purity.

• 1869: President George A. Smith published a small pamphlet which contained the Wentworth Letter account of the First Vision.

• 20 November 1870: President George A. Smith accurately related several First Vision story elements at the pulpit. This time he did NOT mistakenly include any angel Moroni story elements in his narrative.

1. The Lord revealed Himself to Joseph Smith

2. Joseph Smith was puzzled by hearing learned men preach about different doctrines

3. Joseph Smith saw the learned men quarrel over converts

4. Joseph Smith prayed humbly, with faith, because of James 1:5

5. Joseph Smith asked the Lord which was the right way

6. The Lord showed Joseph Smith the right way.

The timeline shows that George A. Smith was accurate in relating First Vision details when he had a physical text to read from. The pattern that can be seen in the timeline above is that George A. Smith was accurate in relating First Vision details when he had a physical text to read from or was formally writing down historical matters; he was accurate on many points when he was talking extemporaneously; he corrected himself after delivering erroneous verbal remarks.

Orson Hyde

Orson Hyde said during a General Conference in 1854:"Some one may say, 'If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Saviour come himself to communicate this intelligence to the world?'" Was Orson Hyde unaware of the details of the Father and Son appearing to Joseph in the First Vision?

When Elder Orson Hyde was discoursing in General Conference on 6 April 1854 he was NOT speaking about the First Vision (a story he knew very well from previously published literature) - he was trying to teach the Latter-day Saints about "the grand harvest" which would take place during "the winding up scene" and the part that "angels" would have in it. The evidence suggests that Elder Hyde was utilizing section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants as the basis for some of his remarks about angels, NOT about the events that took place within the Sacred Grove.

The proper context of Elder Hyde’s remarks can be determined simply by examining his opening statement. There he makes it clear that because it was currently the season for sowing crops he wanted to discourse on some parable imagery found in the 13th chapter of the New Testament book of Matthew (verses 1–9, 36–43).

Elder Hyde specifically mentioned that the "angels" were the agency through which "this reaping dispensation was committed to the children of men" and that these heavenly beings held "the keys of this dispensation." With these words he may well have been referring to the episode recorded in section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants where angels tell Joseph Smith - "the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands" (v. 16). They also "committed the gospel of the dispensation of Abraham" to the Prophet (v. 12) and, furthermore, they "committed unto [him] the keys of the gathering" (v. 11) - [harvest imagery]. Elder Hyde said in his sermon that the angels brought the news that "the time of the end was drawing nigh" and, significantly, the last of the angels to appear in D&C 110 said, "the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors" (v. 16).

A summary of Elder Hyde’s comments shows that he did not intend to speak about the First Vision at all; he wanted to impress upon that Saints that the latter-day work of gathering (the figurative harvest imagery) was inaugurated by angels and they would also play a role in the figurative separation of the wheat and the tares.

• 15 June 1841:

When Orson Hyde was in London, England on a mission he wrote to the Prophet Joseph Smith and informed him: “I have written a book to publish in the German language, setting forth our doctrine and principles in as clear and concise a manner as I possibly could. After giving the history of the rise of the Church, in something the manner that Br[other] O[rson] Pratt did, I have written a snug little article upon every point of doctrine believed by the Saints.”

Elder Hyde is referring to Elder Pratt’s missionary tract - published in Scotland in 1840 - called An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, which contained the first known published, full-length description of the First Vision event. Elder Hyde’s pamphlet contained a recounting of the First Vision that was very similar to the one found in Elder Pratt’s pamphlet.

• 1842: Elder Hyde’s pamphlet was published in Frankfurt, Germany sometime in the year 1842. It was called Eine Stimme aus dem Schoose der Erde (A Cry from the Wilderness, A Voice from the Depths of the Earth). This was the first known foreign-language rendition of the First Vision story.

• 6 February 1851: Elder Lorenzo Snow wrote a letter to Elder Orson Hyde on 6 February 1851 from Geneva, Switzerland and informed him that his own missionary tract called “The Voice of Joseph” (written between 23 July 1850 and 6 September 1850) was circulating in both Italy and Switzerland.

From the above information it can be determined that before Orson Hyde made his 1854 remarks he was aware of at least three orthodox First Vision accounts produced by members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

1. Orson Pratt’s missionary tract [published in 1840],

2. his own missionary tract [written in 1841], and

3. Lorenzo Snow’s missionary tract [written in 1850].

It is high unlikely that Elder Hyde did not possess an accurate understanding of the First Vision story before the year 1854.

Heber C. Kimball

Critics quote a portion of a sermon delivered at the Salt Lake Tabernacle on November 8, 1857 by Heber C. Kimball, in which it appears that he denies that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith. Here is what the critics quote:

Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come himself and call, but he sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates. Did God come himself? No; he sent Moroni and told him there was a record,…Well, then Peter comes along. Why did not God come? He sent Peter, do you not see? Why did he not come along? Because he has agents to attend to his business, and he sits upon his throne and is established at head-quarters, and tells this man, ‘Go and do this;’ and it is behind the vail just as it is here. You have got to learn that.

The very same evidence that was used in the construction of the anti-Mormon charge about Heber C. Kimball can be used to topple it. Kimball's remarks about God not appearing cannot be legitimately applied to Joseph Smith's First Vision experience. This argument is a classic example of taking an isolated statement out of its proper context and drawing a false conclusion based upon faulty evidence. When the entire sermon of Heber C. Kimball is examined in detail, the anti-Mormon argument quickly falls apart. Here is the full quote:

If God confers gifts, and blessings, and promises, and glories, and immortality, and eternal lives, and you receive them and treasure them up, then our Father and our God has joy in that man. . . . Do you not see [that] God is not pleased with any man except those that receive the gifts, and treasure them up, and practice upon those gifts? And He gives those gifts, and confers them upon you, and will have us to practice upon them. Now, these principles to me are plain and simple.

Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come Himself and call, but He sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates. Did God come Himself? No: He sent Moroni and told him there was a record, and says he, "That record is [a] matter that pertains to the Lamanites, and it tells when their fathers came out of Jerusalem, and how they came, and all about it; and, says he, "If you will do as I tell you, I will confer a gift upon you." Well, he conferred it upon him, because Joseph said he would do as he told him. "I want you to go to work and take the Urim and Thummim, and translate this book, and have it published, that this nation may read it." Do you not see, by Joseph receiving the gift that was conferred upon him, you and I have that record?

Well, when this took place, Peter came along to him and gave power and authority, and, says he, "You go and baptize Oliver Cowdery, and then ordain him a priest." He did it, and do you not see his works were in exercise? Then Oliver, having authority, baptized Joseph and ordained him a priest. Do you not see the works, how they manifest themselves?

Well, then Peter comes along. Why did not God come? He sent Peter, do you not see? Why did He not come along? Because He has agents to attend to His business, and He sits upon His throne and is established at headquarters, and tells this man, 'Go and do this'; and it is behind the veil just as it is here."

From a careful reading of this text it can be concluded that Kimball was talking about (#1) the appearance of the angel Moroni in 1823 in connection with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and (#2) the appearance of the apostle Peter in 1829 in connection with the bestowal of the Melchizedek Priesthood. He was talking about two heavenly beings bestowing "gifts" upon Joseph Smith on two different occasions; he was saying that in these two instances God sent His agents to accomplish particular works. However, Heber C. Kimball said absolutely nothing in this statement about the First Vision which occurred in 1820.

It cannot be successfully argued that Heber C. Kimball was not aware of the First Vision story by this point in time either, since no less a person than President Brigham Young recorded in his journal that Brother Kimball was present with several other General Authorities about two and a half months earlier (13 August 1857) when they placed a copy of the Pearl of Great Price inside the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple. This volume contained the 1838 account of the First Vision which was published by the Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois in 1842. There were also several other publications placed inside the temple cornerstone which rehearsed the First Vision story. These included:

• Lorenzo Snow's The Voice of Joseph
• Various tracts from Orson Pratt
• Franklin D. Richards's Compendium
• John Jaques's Catechism for Children
• Millennial Star, vol. 14 supplement
• Millennial Star, vol. 3

Joseph’s Age at the Time of First Vision

When Latter-day Saints describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision, they commonly note that he was very young at the time—about fourteen years old. This understanding comes primarily from Joseph’s later, more formal accounts, but it is also supported by his earliest writings when those documents are read in their historical context.

The most familiar account of the First Vision is Joseph Smith’s 1838–39 history, now canonized as Joseph Smith–History in the Pearl of Great Price. In that narrative, Joseph explained that the vision occurred in the spring of 1820, when he was “an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age.” Since Joseph was born on December 23, 1805, he would have been 14 years old during the spring of 1820, turning fifteen later that year.

Joseph’s other firsthand retellings of the First Vision are consistent with this timeline. In his 1835 account, he said the experience happened when he was “about 14 years old.” In an 1842 summary prepared for publication, he likewise stated that he was “about fourteen years of age” when the event took place. Even in casual recollections to acquaintances, Joseph repeatedly described the First Vision as something that happened in his early teens.

The main question arises from Joseph’s earliest known account, written in 1832. In this document, Joseph (or his scribe) stated that the vision occurred while he was “in the sixteenth year of my age.” At first glance, some readers assume this must mean Joseph was fifteen or even sixteen years old, creating a potential conflict with his later accounts. However, this phrase requires careful historical interpretation.

In early nineteenth-century English usage, saying someone was “in their sixteenth year” did not mean they were sixteen years old. Rather, it meant they had begun the year leading toward their sixteenth birthday. In other words, a person entered their “sixteenth year” immediately after turning fifteen, just as an infant is said to be “in their first year” from birth, not at age one. This older way of reckoning age was common in Joseph Smith’s day and appears in other contemporary documents.

Additionally, the phrase in the 1832 manuscript appears to have been inserted between the lines, suggesting it may reflect later clarification rather than careful chronological precision. The 1832 account itself was not intended as a polished autobiography; instead, it was a private, spiritual narrative focused on Joseph’s sins, repentance, and forgiveness, not on exact dates.

In the 1832 account, Frederick G. Williams inserted the "in the 16th year of my age" above Joseph's text after Joseph had already written it. (See: "History, circa Summer 1832," The Joseph Smith Papers)

When Joseph’s accounts are considered together, they present a coherent picture. He consistently placed the First Vision in the spring of 1820 and consistently described himself as about fourteen years old at the time. The wording in the 1832 account fits comfortably within this framework once historical language and age-counting conventions are taken into account.

In short, the documentary evidence supports the traditional understanding: Joseph Smith was fourteen years old when he experienced the First Vision, a young teenager seeking divine guidance in a time of religious confusion.

Joseph’s Motivation for Seeking Guidance from God

The multiple accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision have long attracted both devotion and criticism. Among the most common objections is the claim that Joseph changed his stated reason for praying over time. Critics argue that his earliest account (1832) presents a desire for forgiveness of sins as his primary motivation, while later accounts—especially the 1838 narrative canonized in the Pearl of Great Price—emphasize a desire to know which church was true. According to this view, the differing emphases represent a contradiction and suggest that the First Vision story evolved over time.

A close reading of all the available evidence, however, shows that this conclusion rests on an oversimplified comparison of selective phrases rather than on the full substance of the documents. When the accounts are read carefully and in their historical and religious context, Joseph Smith’s motivations appear consistent rather than contradictory. From the beginning, he expressed two closely related concerns: a desire to be forgiven of sins and a desire to worship God correctly by affiliating with the true church.

The Core Claim of the Criticism

Critics typically contrast two statements:

• 1832 account: “I cried unto the Lord for mercy, for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy.”
• 1838 account: “My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join.”

From these statements alone, critics conclude that Joseph originally prayed only for forgiveness and later revised his story to include questions about church authority. This comparison, however, strips both texts of their surrounding explanations and ignores the broader religious assumptions of Joseph Smith’s world.

A Close Reading of the 1832 Account

The 1832 account, partly written in Joseph Smith’s own hand, devotes significant space to describing the spiritual journey that led him to prayer. Far from portraying a narrow concern with personal guilt alone, the account reveals a young man grappling with multiple, interconnected questions.

Between the ages of twelve and fifteen, Joseph became deeply concerned about “the welfare of [his] immortal soul.” His search of the scriptures led him to compare biblical Christianity with the behavior and teachings of the denominations around him. This comparison caused him to “marvel exceedingly” and grieve that those who professed religion did not live in a manner consistent with scripture. Joseph further concluded—based on both scripture study and personal observation—that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.” He mourned not only for his own sins, but also “for the sins of the world,” reflecting concern for widespread religious corruption, not merely individual failure.

Only after recounting all of these considerations does Joseph explain why he prayed: “When I considered all these things… therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy.” His prayer was a response to the cumulative weight of doctrinal confusion, perceived apostasy, concern for correct worship, and personal conviction of sin.

In other words, forgiveness of sins was not the sole motivation for prayer—it was part of a broader religious crisis.

Forgiveness of Sins and the “True Church” in Joseph’s Religious World

Understanding Joseph Smith’s motivations requires recognizing an important feature of early nineteenth-century American Christianity. As historian Christopher C. Jones has observed, Joseph’s accounts strongly resemble Methodist conversion narratives, in which forgiveness of sins and correct church affiliation were inseparable. In Joseph’s religious culture, one found forgiveness by joining the right church and adhering to correct doctrine.

Under this framework, asking God for forgiveness inherently involved asking God which church—and which teachings—were correct. The two concerns rode in tandem, not in competition. Thus, even if the 1832 account emphasizes repentance language, it does not exclude institutional or doctrinal concerns. On the contrary, the account explicitly laments the failure of existing denominations to embody New Testament Christianity.

Significantly, in the vision itself, Joseph is told not merely that his sins are forgiven, but that “the world lieth in sin” and that religious leaders “draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me,” echoing Matthew 15:8–9. This language points beyond personal forgiveness toward a general apostasy and the need for divine restoration.

Scriptural Allusions and the Broader Apostasy Theme

The 1832 account also draws on scriptural language that Joseph later revisited during his translation of the Bible—particularly in JST Psalm 14. That psalm laments the loss of truth in the last days, declaring that “none doeth good” because religious teachers have gone astray. Scholars such as Joseph Fielding McConkie, Matthew Brown, Don Bradley, and Walker Wright have noted that Joseph’s JST rendering of Psalm 14 closely parallels themes in the First Vision and may even have influenced the language of his early history.

These parallels reinforce the idea that Joseph’s concern was not simply moral failure among individuals, but doctrinal corruption among religious teachers and institutions. Under this reading, the 1832 account implicitly addresses the same “which church is true?” question that later accounts state more explicitly.

The Later Accounts: Emphasis Without Contradiction

Joseph Smith’s later narrations of the First Vision vary in detail depending on audience and purpose. The 1835 account includes both concerns explicitly: uncertainty about which religious system was right and the declaration that his sins were forgiven. The 1838 account foregrounds religious confusion and the question of church authority but still alludes to “many other things” said during the vision that are not recorded—leaving room for experiences, such as forgiveness, described elsewhere.

Similarly, third-party retellings by Orson Pratt (1840) and Orson Hyde (1842) combine both themes: preparation for a future state, concern for salvation, confusion among denominations, and assurance of divine favor.

Rather than showing a shift in motivation, these accounts show selective emphasis, shaped by context and audience. None of them deny either concern; each highlights different aspects of the same religious struggle.

The claim that Joseph Smith changed his motivation for seeking revelation does not survive careful scrutiny. Across all accounts, Joseph presents himself as a young man profoundly concerned with salvation—how to prepare for eternity, how to worship God correctly, and how to receive forgiveness of sins. In his worldview, these were not separate questions but variations on the same theme. Differences among the First Vision accounts reflect changes in emphasis, audience, and narrative purpose—not contradiction. When read in context and within the religious culture of Joseph Smith’s time, the accounts form a coherent and internally consistent explanation of why he went to the grove to pray in 1820.

Rather than depicting an evolving fabrication, the evidence shows a stable core story: Joseph Smith sought divine guidance because he believed his soul—and the religious world around him—were in need of correction that only God could provide.

Knowing if God Existed

A frequently repeated claim in critical discussions of early Latter-day Saint history is that Oliver Cowdery taught that Joseph Smith did not even know whether a “Supreme Being” existed prior to 1823, thereby implying ignorance of God before the visit of the angel Moroni. This claim is based on a selective and decontextualized reading of Oliver Cowdery’s Church history, published in installments in the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate beginning in late 1834. When read carefully and in full historical context, Oliver’s account does not deny Joseph Smith’s First Vision, nor does it suggest that Joseph was an atheist prior to Moroni’s visit. Instead, it reflects a complex narrative strategy, one that presupposes Joseph’s earlier divine encounter while choosing not to narrate it directly.

Oliver Cowdery’s 1834–1835 History

In December 1834, Oliver Cowdery began publishing a formal history of the Church in the Messenger and Advocate. In the first installment, Oliver accurately placed Joseph Smith at fourteen years of age during a period of intense religious excitement and revivalism. He described the surrounding sectarian contention and Joseph’s deep concern for his soul—an account that clearly parallels Joseph Smith’s own descriptions of the circumstances leading to the First Vision.

This initial installment builds narrative momentum toward a revelatory experience. Readers naturally expect the culminating event to be Joseph’s First Vision. However, in the second installment, published in February 1835, Oliver takes an unexpected turn.

The Apparent Discontinuity in the Second Installment

In the February 1835 installment, Oliver abruptly “corrects” Joseph’s age from fourteen to seventeen and proceeds to describe the visit of the angel Moroni rather than the First Vision. He does not narrate the vision of the Father and the Son explicitly, creating the impression—at least for modern readers unfamiliar with the broader documentary record—that Oliver either did not know of the First Vision or believed the Moroni visitation to be Joseph’s earliest divine encounter.

This narrative move has led some critics to argue that the First Vision was a later invention and that Joseph initially believed Moroni’s appearance was his first theophany. However, this interpretation collapses under close examination of both Oliver’s own language and the documentary evidence available at the time he was writing.

Evidence That Oliver Knew of the First Vision

By 1834, Joseph Smith had already recorded an account of his First Vision in his 1832 history, in which he explicitly stated that he “saw the Lord.” There is substantial evidence that Oliver Cowdery had access to this document while preparing his history. Not only was Oliver serving as Church historian at the time, but there are also striking verbal and thematic correlations between Joseph’s 1832 account, Oliver’s 1834–1835 history, and Joseph’s 1835 journal entry describing the same events.

Rather than being ignorant of the First Vision, Oliver appears to have assumed its reality and authority—so much so that he felt no need to retell it in detail. Instead, he refers to it obliquely before continuing his narrative with Moroni’s visit.

“If a Supreme Being Did Exist”: What Oliver Actually Meant

The most frequently misunderstood statement in Oliver’s February 1835 installment occurs when he minimizes the earlier religious excitement and writes that Joseph sought:

a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him.

This sentence is often cited as evidence that Joseph doubted the existence of God prior to 1823. However, the grammatical structure and narrative framing show that Oliver is referring retrospectively to Joseph’s earlier state of concern, not his condition at age seventeen. The “religious excitement” is explicitly described as a past experience, tied to Joseph’s youth and spiritual anxiety, not as his settled worldview.

Immediately following this statement, Oliver affirms that Joseph’s seeking had already been answered. He writes:

This, most assuredly, was correct—it was right. The Lord has said, long since… that for him who knocks it shall be opened.

The phrase “long since” signals that the divine response occurred prior to the events Oliver is about to describe—namely, the visit of Moroni. In other words, Oliver is assuring readers that Joseph’s earlier plea for divine confirmation had already been answered, even though Oliver does not recount the vision explicitly.

An Intentional Narrative Shift, Not a Denial

Oliver Cowdery’s decision to move directly to Moroni’s visit after alluding to Joseph’s earlier divine encounter appears to be a stylistic and narrative choice, not a theological one. The second installment functions as a transition from Joseph’s preparatory spiritual experiences to the beginning of his prophetic commission tied to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Far from denying the First Vision, Oliver signals its reality while choosing to focus on subsequent events. His language affirms that something decisive and correct had already taken place in Joseph’s life—a divine response consistent with Joseph Smith’s own accounts.

Oliver Cowdery did not claim that Joseph Smith lacked belief in a Supreme Being until 1823, nor did he deny or replace the First Vision with Moroni’s appearance. When read carefully, Oliver’s history presupposes Joseph’s earlier encounter with God and reflects familiarity with Joseph’s 1832 account. The much-discussed phrase “if a Supreme being did exist” describes Joseph’s earlier religious questioning, not his final understanding.

Rather than undermining Joseph Smith’s First Vision, Oliver Cowdery’s history quietly affirms it—demonstrating that by the mid-1830s, the experience was known, authoritative, and foundational, even when not retold in full detail.

Were All the Churches False or Not?

One of the most persistent criticisms of Joseph Smith’s First Vision accounts is the claim that he had already concluded—before going to the grove to pray—that all churches were false. According to this argument, statements in Joseph’s earliest account (1832) indicate that he had already determined that “there was no society or denomination” built upon the New Testament. This, critics argue, contradicts later accounts in which Joseph expresses uncertainty about which church was true and even surprise upon being told by God to join none of them.

A careful examination of the historical record shows that this criticism rests on a false dilemma. Joseph Smith did not enter the grove having definitively decided that all churches everywhere were false. Rather, the evidence consistently portrays a young seeker who had become deeply disillusioned with the denominations known to him, yet remained uncertain about his duty and still hoped that God would identify the true path.

The Claim of Contradiction

Critics typically point to an apparent tension between two sets of statements:

• 1832 account: Joseph states that through scripture study he learned that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.”
• 1835 and 1838 accounts: Joseph repeatedly says that he “knew not who was right or who was wrong” and that his object in praying was to know “which of all the sects was right.”

From this contrast, critics argue that Joseph had already concluded that all churches were false in 1832 but later revised his story to portray himself as uncertain in order to heighten the drama or doctrinal implications of the First Vision.

This conclusion, however, misunderstands both the scope of Joseph’s early conclusions and the language he used to describe them.

What Joseph Smith Actually Concluded Before Praying

The 1832 account explains how Joseph reached his preliminary conclusions. From roughly age twelve onward, he studied the Bible and compared it to what he observed among the Christian denominations in his area. His conclusions were based on his “intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations,” not on abstract knowledge of Christianity worldwide.

When Joseph wrote that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ,” the context suggests a judgment about the denominations with which he was familiar, not a settled conclusion about every church on earth. This reading is reinforced by contemporaneous evidence. An 1832 newspaper report stated that Joseph “had not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them, and being in doubt what his duty was, he had recourse to prayer.”

In other words, Joseph’s scripture study had led him to doubt the adequacy of the denominations he knew—but not to certainty about what he should do instead. His conclusions intensified his confusion rather than resolved it.

Doubt and Uncertainty in the Later Accounts

This same uncertainty appears consistently in Joseph’s later accounts. In his 1835 diary entry, he wrote that he “knew not who was right or who was wrong” and felt it was “of the first importance” to determine the truth because of the eternal consequences involved. In the 1838 account, he explained that he was too young and inexperienced “to come to any certain conclusion who was right, and who was wrong,” despite his growing concerns about religious corruption.

This is not a retreat from an earlier certainty but an acknowledgment that Joseph’s personal conclusions were insufficient. The fact that he had already identified serious doctrinal problems did not give him confidence to act decisively. Instead, it convinced him that only divine revelation could settle the matter.

“Never Entered Into My Heart”: A Question of Meaning

One frequently cited objection focuses on Joseph Smith–History 1:18–19, where Joseph says that it “had never entered into my heart” that all churches were wrong, even though earlier he had asked whether “they were all wrong together.” At face value, this appears contradictory.

However, the phrase “entered into my heart” carries a specific meaning in Joseph’s religious vocabulary. Joseph used similar language elsewhere to describe moments of spiritual certainty rather than mere intellectual consideration. Something could pass through the mind without being fully accepted or internalized at the level of conviction.

Thus, Joseph could consider the possibility that the local denominations were all in error without emotionally or spiritually accepting the idea that no true church existed anywhere. Indeed, a draft history recorded by scribe Howard Coray clarifies this point by stating that Joseph “supposed that one of them were so”—that is, he still believed that at least one sect might be right, even if he had doubts.

The Scope of Joseph’s Question: Local or Universal?

Another key insight comes from reading Joseph Smith–History 1:10–18 as a continuous thought rather than isolated verses. In the passages immediately preceding Joseph’s famous question, he specifically names the Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists as the denominations contending around him. His question—“Who of all these parties are right?”—naturally refers back to those groups.

Read this way, Joseph was asking whether the prominent denominations in his area were correct—or whether they were all mistaken—not whether Christianity itself had entirely vanished from the earth. If so, the later instruction to “join none of them” because all were wrong—apparently without geographical or denominational limitation—could well have been surprising and spiritually jarring.

Orson Pratt and the Broader Religious World

Orson Pratt’s 1840 account further undermines the idea that Joseph had already settled the question. Pratt reports that Joseph reflected on the existence of “many hundreds of different denominations” worldwide and wondered whether any of them constituted the Church of Christ. This expansive view makes little sense if Joseph had already concluded that all churches everywhere were false. Instead, it portrays a young man hoping—however uncertainly—that somewhere among the many sects was the truth.

The historical evidence does not support the claim that Joseph Smith definitively concluded before the First Vision that all churches were false. Rather, it shows that he became increasingly aware of doctrinal corruption and religious division among the denominations he knew, which deepened his uncertainty and led him to seek divine guidance.

Joseph’s scripture study created a crisis, not a resolution. He doubted the churches around him, questioned the integrity of their teachings, and mourned the spiritual condition of the world—but he did not claim the authority or certainty to declare universal apostasy on his own. That determination, according to all accounts, came only through revelation.

Thus, far from undermining the First Vision narratives, the apparent tension between the accounts reflects a realistic process of religious searching: growing doubt, unresolved questions, and the decision to seek answers from God rather than from human judgment alone.

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

Gospel Topics, located on lds.org., "First Vision Accounts"

Gospel Topics, located on lds.org.

The various accounts of the First Vision tell a consistent story, though naturally they differ in emphasis and detail. Historians expect that when an individual retells an experience in multiple settings to different audiences over many years, each account will emphasize various aspects of the experience and contain unique details. Indeed, differences similar to those in the First Vision accounts exist in the multiple scriptural accounts of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus and the Apostles’ experience on the Mount of Transfiguration.3 Yet despite the differences, a basic consistency remains across all the accounts of the First Vision. Some have mistakenly argued that any variation in the retelling of the story is evidence of fabrication. To the contrary, the rich historical record enables us to learn more about this remarkable event than we could if it were less well documented.

Click here to view the complete article

Response to claim: 30 - In his 1835 First Vision account, Joseph stated the he saw “many angels”

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

In his 1835 First Vision account, Joseph stated the he saw “many angels.”

Author's sources: The author's source is assumed to be one of Joseph’s two 1835 journal entries which mention the First Vision. This particular instance would correlate with the 9 November 1835 journal entry.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Question: What are the two 1835 First Vision accounts that refer to angels?

Joseph Smith's two 1835 accounts of the First Vision

Two of Joseph Smith's November 1835 diary entries make reference to the First Vision:

November 9, 1835

a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon me head, and filled me with Joy unspeakable, 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, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testifyed unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; <and I saw many angels in this vision> I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication; When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels in the night season after I had retired to bed.

Note that the additional detail that there were "many angels" was inserted into the text as a clarification. This is the only account which mentions other personages in the vision other than the Father and Son.

November 14, 1835

I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14.

First Vision | Alleged Contradictions

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unmasked/Chapter 3

Critics have routinely asserted that Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision contain contradictions. This page gathers all the alleged "contradictions" and clarifies each, showing that Joseph Smith's accounts can easily be harmonized. Critics have challenged the First Vision on other grounds. They argue that there are embellishments and that there are historical anachronisms in the accounts. If you do not find what you're looking for on this page, be sure to visit those two pages that address embellishments or historical anachronisms.

---

One or Two Personages?

Joseph Smith wrote several accounts of the First Vision. In his earliest written account from 1832, he speaks clearly about seeing “the Lord.” In later accounts, especially those from 1835 and 1838, he says that he saw two personages—God the Father and Jesus Christ. Some people claim this means Joseph changed his story. A closer look shows there are good reasons for the difference.

1. The 1832 Account Does Not Leave God the Father Out

Even though Joseph does not clearly describe God the Father appearing in the 1832 account, he still refers to Him. At the start of the history, Joseph says that the First Vision was when he was “receiving the testimony from on high.” In Joseph’s later accounts, that “testimony” is when God the Father introduces Jesus Christ and tells Joseph who He is.

In the Bible and other scripture, a voice that comes “from heaven” or “from on high” usually means God the Father. Joseph used this same kind of language both before and after 1832. Because of this, many scholars believe Joseph understood the voice “from on high” to be the Father, even if he did not describe seeing Him clearly in that part of the story.

There is also a line in the 1832 account that says, “the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.” Some readers think this could mean two beings—one who opens the heavens and another who appears.

2. Scripture Often Describes Visions This Way

Joseph’s way of writing in 1832 matches how visions are described in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. In the Book of Mormon, Lehi sees God on His throne, but Jesus Christ is the one who comes down and speaks to him. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul describes seeing Jesus Christ in a vision, but he does not say he saw God the Father.

Joseph appears to have modeled part of his 1832 account after Paul’s experience. Since Paul focused on Christ and not the Father, Joseph may have done the same in his first written telling.

3. The 1832 Account Focuses on Jesus Christ

In the 1832 account, the main message is that Joseph’s sins were forgiven. In later accounts, Jesus Christ is the one who delivers that message after the Father introduces Him. This suggests that Joseph focused on Jesus in 1832 because Jesus was the one speaking to him and forgiving his sins. The account is centered on what mattered most to Joseph at that moment.

4. Writing Was Harder for Joseph Than Speaking

Joseph wrote the 1832 account himself, and it was the first time he tried to write his life story. Later accounts were mostly spoken and written down by others. Joseph once said that writing felt limiting and difficult for him. Because of this, the 1832 account is shorter and less detailed. As time went on, Joseph became better at explaining what happened and used clearer language.

5. The Accounts Are More Alike Than Different

Three of Joseph’s four main accounts clearly say that two personages appeared. The 1832 account can still be read in a way that fits with the others. The differences mostly come from what Joseph chose to emphasize, not from changing what he experienced.

Fire or Light?

Critics sometimes argue that Joseph Smith contradicted himself by saying that a “pillar of fire” appeared in some accounts of the First Vision and a “pillar of light” in others. A closer look at scripture, language, and Joseph’s own explanations shows that this difference is not a real contradiction.

First, in the Bible and other scriptures, fire and light are often used to describe the same divine presence. God appears to Moses in a burning bush that gives light but does not burn the bush (Exodus 3). The Lord leads Israel with a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day (Exodus 13:21), showing that fire can function as a source of light. Heavenly beings are also described as shining, glowing, or appearing “like fire.” Because of this, describing a divine manifestation as either “fire” or “light” fits well within biblical language.

Second, Joseph’s own descriptions connect fire and light, rather than treating them as opposites. In the 1832 account, he says he saw a “pillar of fire, light above the brightness of the sun at noon day.” This wording already blends the two ideas. Joseph appears to be using familiar biblical imagery to describe something intensely bright and powerful, not trying to give a scientific description of its physical makeup.

Third, different words can describe the same experience, especially when someone is trying to put an extraordinary event into ordinary language. A blazing light can look like fire. Fire itself gives off light. When Joseph told or wrote about his experience in different settings and for different audiences, he used different words that pointed to the same reality—a brilliant, heavenly manifestation coming from God.

Fourth, Joseph’s later accounts aim for clarity, not correction. As he retold the story over time, he often chose words that would help listeners better understand what he saw. “Light” may have been clearer and less confusing than “fire” for later audiences, especially since the pillar did not burn anything. This is the same way people today might describe the same event differently depending on context, without contradicting themselves.

In short, the use of “pillar of fire” in one account and “pillar of light” in another reflects biblical style, natural language variation, and growing clarity, not a contradiction. Both expressions describe the same overwhelming divine glory and are completely consistent with each other and with scripture.

The Lord or an Angel?

Critics have occasionally asserted that early Latter-day Saint sources understood Joseph Smith’s First Vision to involve only an angel rather than God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is based on selective quotations from early leaders, secondary retellings, and the use of the term angel in some historical contexts. Joseph Smith’s own early accounts also contribute to the confusion. In his 1835 journal, Joseph referred to his youthful experiences as involving the “first visitation of angels” and stated that “many angels” were present. Importantly, the same account also explicitly describes the appearance of two personages, one of whom testified that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. A careful examination of the primary sources, however, shows that these references do not reflect a doctrinal misunderstanding of the First Vision, but instead arise from differences in terminology, abbreviated retellings, and occasional conflation of distinct visionary events.

Oliver Cowdery

Oliver Cowdery wrote an early history of Joseph Smith in 1834–1835 for a Church newspaper called the Messenger and Advocate. Critics often point to this account to claim that Cowdery believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. A closer and simpler reading of Cowdery’s writing shows that this conclusion goes beyond what Cowdery actually said.

In his account, Cowdery explained that Joseph Smith was confused by the many churches around him and wanted to know whether God really existed. Joseph prayed, and an angel appeared and told him that his sins were forgiven. Cowdery then moved directly into a story that closely matches later accounts of the angel Moroni and the gold plates. Because Cowdery did not clearly separate these events, some readers assume he believed there was only one vision.

However, Cowdery’s goal was not to give a detailed timeline of every vision Joseph experienced. He was writing a brief introduction to Joseph Smith’s calling as a prophet for readers who already believed Joseph was inspired by God. To keep the story simple, Cowdery combined Joseph’s early spiritual experiences into one shortened account focused on forgiveness and calling.

Cowdery even corrected himself in a later issue after realizing he had listed the wrong age for Joseph. This shows that the history was informal and not meant to be a carefully edited record. At no point did Cowdery say that Joseph had only one vision, nor did he deny later accounts that describe God the Father and Jesus Christ appearing to Joseph.

Cowdery’s writing also fits well with Joseph Smith’s own 1832 account, which focused more on Joseph seeking forgiveness than on explaining exactly who appeared to him. At the time, people often used the word angel in a general way to describe messages from heaven.

There is no evidence that Oliver Cowdery rejected or misunderstood the First Vision. His use of the word angel reflects a short, simplified retelling of Joseph Smith’s early experiences, not a different belief about what Joseph actually saw.

Brigham Young

Critics sometimes claim that Brigham Young believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is usually based on a short quotation taken from one of Young’s sermons, where he said, “The Lord did not come… but He did send His angel.” When read by itself, this line can sound like Brigham Young was denying the First Vision as it is taught today. However, reading the full sermon shows that this interpretation is incorrect:

The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him. (Journal of Discourses 2:170-171)

In the full statement, Brigham Young was not saying that the Lord never came to Joseph Smith. Instead, he was explaining how the Lord chose to reveal Himself. Young specifically said that the Lord did not come “with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory.” In other words, God did not appear with overwhelming display, grandeur, or force. Instead, He worked through humble means that matched Joseph Smith’s situation and character.

Brigham Young then explained that the Lord “did send His angel” to Joseph Smith. Importantly, the sentence continues by saying that the Lord informed Joseph that he should not join any of the religious sects because they were all wrong. Grammatically and logically, Brigham Young is describing the angel as the messenger, while the message itself comes from the Lord. This fits well with how divine communication is described throughout the Bible, where God often teaches or commands through angels.

It is also important to remember that Joseph Smith experienced multiple angelic visitations, especially from the angel Moroni. Brigham Young frequently spoke in broad, summarized language about Joseph’s early calling, often blending different events together to make a general point about divine authority rather than to give a detailed history lesson. His sermon was focused on showing that God chose a humble young man and guided him step by step, not on listing every vision in precise order.

There is strong evidence elsewhere that Brigham Young accepted Joseph Smith’s account of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ. He taught openly that God the Father and the Son were separate beings and fully supported Joseph Smith’s prophetic testimony. The selective use of one sentence from a longer sermon does not reflect Young’s overall beliefs.

When read in full and in context, Brigham Young’s words do not show confusion or disagreement about the First Vision. Instead, they show his effort to explain that God did not appear with dramatic display, but worked through angels and personal revelation to call Joseph Smith in a quiet and humble way.

Lucy Mack Smith

Some critics claim that Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, said his First Vision was only of an angel — and not of God the Father and Jesus Christ. This idea usually comes from a letter she wrote in January 1831. However, when her words are read carefully and in context, it is clear that she was not trying to describe the First Vision itself, and she did not deny that Joseph saw God and Christ. Lucy’s letter was not written to explain every vision Joseph had. Instead, she wrote it to introduce the Book of Mormon to her siblings and explain how that book came forth. In that letter, she quoted language that closely matches a passage in the Church’s Articles and Covenants (Doctrine and Covenants 20:5–8) — language that refers to God ministering to Joseph by an angel who gave him commandments and assistance to translate the plates.

Critics sometimes point to this and say Lucy was referring to the First Vision. But her letter does not say that the visit of the angel was Joseph’s first spiritual experience, nor does it suggest that he only saw an angel instead of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Instead, her wording reflects the common devotional style and biblical language of the time — where an angel is described as a messenger of God who brings instruction or revelation.

In her letter, Lucy actually echoes Doctrine & Covenants 20, received in 1830, that already assumes the First Vision had taken place and that Joseph had received a mission from the Lord. The letter closely paraphrases that text.

• D&C 20:5-8 (April 1830)

(verse 5) "After it was truly manifested unto this first elder [i.e., Joseph Smith] that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world; (verse 6) But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness; (verse 7) And gave unto him commandments which inspired him; (verse 8) And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon."(D&C 20꞉5-8

Compare this with Mother Smith's letter:

• LUCY'S LETTER (January 1831)

"Joseph, after repenting of his sins and humbling himself before God, was visited by an holy angel whose countenance was as lightning and whose garments were white above all whiteness, who gave unto him commandments which inspired him from on high; and who gave unto him, by the means of which was before prepared, that he should translate this book."

Compare both of the above sources with the Prophet's 1832 First Vision narrative:

• FIRST VISION ACCOUNT (September–November 1832)

"I felt to mourn for my own sins....[The Lord said during the First Vision,] 'thy sins are forgiven thee'....after many days I fell into transgression and sinned in many things....I called again upon the Lord and he shewed unto me a heavenly vision for behold an angel of the Lord came and stood before me....the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book therefore I commenced translating the characters."

Critics also fail to point out that almost exactly two months before Lucy Mack Smith wrote her letter, four Latter-day Saint missionaries (Oliver Cowdery, Orson Pratt, Peter Whitmer Jr. and Ziba Peterson) were publicly teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God "personally" and had received a commission from Him to preach true religion. It is specifically stated in the newspaper article that records this information that the missionaries made their comments about 1 November 1830 - shortly after the Church was formally organized. Some critics who do acknowledge this newspaper article attempt to dismiss it by calling it a "vague" reference, despite the clear wording that the missionaries taught that Joseph "had seen God frequently and personally."

Although one critic of the Church indicates that the letter was “unpublished until 1906”, he does not indicate where, or by whom. First published by Ben E. Rich, President of the Southern States Mission, the letter has been long available to interested students of Latter-day Saint history.

It should be noted that the Lucy Mack Smith letter was not even available for publication until just shortly before it appeared in print because it was in a descendant's possession. The introduction to the letter published in the Elders' Journal states: "The following very interesting and earnest gospel letter written by Lucy Mack Smith, mother of the Prophet Joseph, to her brother, Solomon Mack and his wife, was presented to President Joseph F. Smith a few weeks ago by Mrs. Candace Mack Barker, of Keene, N[ew] H[ampshire], a grand-daughter of Solomon Mack, to whom the letter is addressed. Mrs. Barker stated that it was her desire to place the letter in the hands of those who would appreciate its contents and preserve it as she felt it properly deserved." The idea that Lucy Mack was trying to hide a First Vision story is not supported by the historical record.

In short, Lucy Mack Smith’s 1831 letter does not say that Joseph’s First Vision was of an angel instead of God and Christ. Instead, she was summarizing part of the early Church’s understanding of how revelation came to Joseph — in this case, through an angelic messenger connected with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon — and she did not intend to give a full history of every heavenly manifestation Joseph experienced.

John Taylor

Some critics point to a statement by John Taylor in an 1879 sermon where he referred to Joseph Smith asking an angel which church was right. They claim this shows that Taylor was confused about the First Vision. While the quotation itself is accurate, it does not show confusion when it is placed in its full historical setting.

“…just as it was when the prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right. What, none of them? No. we will not stop to argue that question; the angel merely told him to join none of them that none of them were right.” (Journal of Discourses vol. 20, p. 167)

John Taylor was deeply familiar with the First Vision account. In fact, he served as the editor of the Church’s newspaper, Times and Seasons, in 1842–1843. During that time, he oversaw the publication of Joseph Smith’s history, which included the clear account of the First Vision describing the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ. It is not reasonable to believe that Taylor could publish this material without understanding or accepting it.

Taylor also had direct involvement with the Pearl of Great Price. The First Vision account was included in the Pearl of Great Price when the Pearl of Great Price was first published in 1851, and John Taylor approved a new American edition in 1878—only one year before the sermon critics quote. This shows that he was well aware of the official First Vision narrative.

On October 7th, 1878, nearly a year and a half before his 1879 sermon, he wrote a letter in behalf of the Quorum of the Twelve commenting upon a book by Edward W. Tullidge entitled Life of Joseph Smith. In that letter, he wrote:

God the Father and Jesus, with the ancient apostles, prophets, patriarchs and men of God have revealed to Joseph Smith principles on which hang the destinies of the world

Even more telling is that on the same day as the 1879 sermon where Taylor used the word angel, he also spoke of the Father, the Son, and Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith:

When Jesus sent forth his servants formerly he sent them to preach this Gospel. When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith, he had a priesthood conferred upon him which he conferred upon others for the purpose of manifesting the laws of life, the Gospel of the Son of God, by direct authority, that light and truth might be spread forth among all nations. (Journal of Discourses 20:257)

This shows that Taylor was not denying or forgetting the First Vision. Instead, he was speaking in a brief and informal way during part of his remarks and then referring more fully to Joseph’s experiences elsewhere.

So why did John Taylor use the word angel at all? The most likely explanation is that he was either speaking generally about divine messengers or using biblical language, where heavenly beings are sometimes called angels even when they act with God’s authority. In the Bible, for example, God Himself is sometimes called an “angel” because the word means messenger.

When all of John Taylor’s writings and sermons are considered together, it becomes clear that he fully understood and taught that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. The single reference to an angel does not reflect confusion, but rather a brief or symbolic use of language taken out of context.

Orson Pratt

Some critics claim that Orson Pratt believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is usually based on a short quote from an 1869 sermon where Pratt said that “God had sent an angel” to Joseph Smith:

“By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him;… This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)

When this short quote is read by itself, it can sound like Pratt misunderstood the First Vision. But reading the full sermon shows that this is not true. In the same sermon, Orson Pratt clearly explained what Joseph Smith said he saw.

By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him; that through his faith, prayers, and sincere repentance he had beheld a supernatural vision, that he had seen a pillar of fire descend from Heaven, and saw two glorious personages clothed upon with this pillar of fire, whose countenance shone like the sun at noonday; that he heard one of these personages say, pointing to the other, ‘This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.’ This occurred before this young man was fifteen years of age; and it was a startling announcement to make in the midst of a generation so completely given up to the traditions of their fathers; and when this was proclaimed by this young, unlettered boy to the priests and the religious societies in the State of New York, they laughed him to scorn. ‘What!’ said they, “visions and revelations in our day! God speaking to men in our day!” They looked upon him as deluded; they pointed the finger of scorn at him and warned their congregations against him. ‘The canon of Scripture is closed up; no more communications are to be expected from Heaven. The ancients saw heavenly visions and personages; they heard the voice of the Lord; they were inspired by the Holy Ghost to receive revelations, but behold no such thing is to be given to man in our day, neither has there been for many generations past.’ This was the style of the remarks made by religionists forty years ago. This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)

Pratt taught that Joseph saw a pillar of fire come down from heaven and that he saw two glorious personages inside that light. He described their faces shining like the sun and said that Joseph heard one of them speak while pointing to the other and saying, “This is my Beloved Son, hear ye him.” This is a clear and accurate description of the First Vision as Joseph Smith later recorded it.

Pratt’s use of the word angel at the beginning of the sermon does not replace or contradict this description. Instead, Pratt was summarizing Joseph’s message to the world in simple terms before explaining the details. In the 1800s, Church leaders often used the word angel to mean a messenger sent by God, especially when speaking to audiences who were unfamiliar with Latter-day Saint beliefs. At the end of the sermon, Pratt also spoke about Joseph Smith being visited “four years afterwards” by another angel. This clearly refers to the visit of the angel Moroni, showing that Pratt understood Joseph Smith had more than one heavenly experience and that these events were separate.

When the full sermon is read, it is clear that Orson Pratt knew and taught that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. The claim that Pratt was confused comes from quoting only a small part of his words and leaving out the section where he gives a detailed and correct explanation of the vision.

Wilford Woodruff

Wilford Woodruff is claimed to have said in an 1855 sermon that the Church had been established in the last days only by "the ministering of an holy angel", and not by the Father and the Son. The following text is the one used by critics of the Church to try and make it look like Apostle Wilford Woodruff taught something other than the traditional storyline of the First Vision.

"That same organization and gospel that Christ died for...is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy angel from God...The angel taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world...He told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of His kingdom in the world"

An examination of the original text of the sermon in question reveals that Wilford Woodruff's words are being taken out of context by critics. The bolded words below show which sections of the paragraph have been selected by detractors to try and rewrite history.

"The gospel has gone forth in our day in its true glory, power, order, and light, as it always did when God had a people among men that He acknowledged. That same organization and gospel that Christ died for, and the Apostles spilled their blood to vindicate, is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy ANGEL from God, out of heaven, who held converse with man, and revealed unto him the darkness that enveloped the world, and unfolded unto him the gross darkness that surrounded the nations, those scenes that should take place in this generation, and would follow each other in quick succession, even unto the coming of the Messiah. The ANGEL taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world; and THE LORD gave him commandments, and sealed upon him the Priesthood, and gave him power to administer the ordinances of the house of the Lord. HE told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of HIS kingdom in the world, that the people had turned away from HIS true order, changed the ordinances, and broken the everlasting covenant, and inherited lies and things wherein their was no profit. HE told him the time had come to lay the foundation for the establishment of the Kingdom of God among men for the last time, preparatory to the winding up scene" (emphasis added).

When critics break the above quotation into pieces in the manner that they have, they create an unrecognized problem for themselves. A careful reading of this material indicates that it was not the angel who told Joseph Smith that "the gospel was not among men"; it was the "the Lord" who provided this information (see the capitalized/italicized words above: ANGEL, THE LORD, HE, HIS). The anti-Mormons have, through their editing of the text, made it falsely appear as if the words of the angel and the Lord were one and the same. Woodruff's quote does not state that it was the angel who told Joseph Smith that "the gospel was not among men"; it was the "the Lord" who provided this information

The attempt to use Wilford Woodruff's words to obscure the details of Mormon history is a misguided one because the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that critics advocate. Elder Woodruff was in the second highest leadership quorum of the Church during the lifetime of Joseph Smith and never once did he mention that the Prophet told two different tales about the founding of the last gospel dispensation.

It is difficult to believe that Elder Wilford Woodruff did not have an accurate knowledge of the traditional First Vision story prior to his 1855 remarks since on 3 February 1842 he became the superintendent of the printing office in Nauvoo, Illinois where the Times and Seasons newspaper was published and remained there through at least 8 November 1843. These dates are significant because in-between them the Prophet Joseph Smith had two separate accounts of the First Vision printed on the pages of the Times and Seasons and so Elder Woodruff would have been the person who was ultimately responsible for their production and distribution.

• Times and Seasons 3 no. 9 (1 March 1842), 706–707. off-site GospeLink [Wentworth Letter First Vision account].
• Times and Seasons 3 no. 11 (1 April 1842), 748–749. off-site GospeLink [History of the Church official First Vision account].

It should also be noted that before Elder Woodruff made his 1855 remarks six other members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles published First Vision accounts: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852). It seems highly unlikely that Elder Woodruff would have remained unaware of these publications, which were made available to the public by his closest associates.

George A. Smith

Apostle George A. Smith said on two separate occasions that Joseph Smith's First Vision was of an "angel"—not of the Father and the Son. However, the argument that George A. Smith was simply not aware of a Father-and-Son First Vision account when he made his "angel" statements is nonsense since it can be shown from a documentary standpoint that he did indeed have prior knowledge of such a thing. An argument of ignorance is also untenable in light of the fact that Brother Smith's close associates in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had published orthodox recitals of the First Vision on nine different occasions long BEFORE he made his verbal missteps at the pulpit: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852).

This does not mean that Brother Smith was not aware of the Father and the Son appearing to the Prophet at the time that he made his anomalous remarks. The following timeline demonstrates that the Prophet's cousin was well aware of the official version of events. His out-of-place comments need to be evaluated from that perspective.

• 7 April 1854: Elder George A. Smith was appointed at General Conference to be the new Church Historian.

• 9 August 1855: Elder George A. Smith wrote to the editor of the Deseret News on 9 August 1855 and gave permission to publish a short Church history that was originally requested for inclusion in a non-Mormon publication, but which ultimately did not appear in print. When Elder Smith told the First Vision story in this history he said that Joseph Smith beheld "two glorious Beings" during the experience. The capitalization of the word "Beings" indicates that the two individuals were considered to be Deity. Elder Smith then went on to tell the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon which, he said, was instigated by an "angel" who was commissioned of God (Deseret News, vol. 5, no. 26, 5 September 1855, 2).

• 15 August 1855: The First Vision account as found in the Wentworth Letter (1 March 1842) was published in Salt Lake City in connection with the official History of the Church. This account speaks of "two glorious personages" and then later speaks of the single "angel" who was involved in revealing the existence of the Book of Mormon plates. Since Elder Smith was the Church Historian at this time he likely would have known about the content of this publication.

• 6 August 1862: Elder George A. Smith's short Church history (see 9 August 1855 above) was reprinted on the pages of the Deseret News. In this First Vision account Elder Smith referred to "two glorious Beings" and then later spoke of the single "angel" who was involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon

• 15 November 1864: In a discourse on historical matters, Elder George A. Smith quoted directly from the official First Vision account, which was first published in the Times and Seasons newspaper on 15 March 1842 and 1 April 1842. Elder Smith recited the line, “This is my Beloved Son, hear Him” – leaving no doubt that he knew the specific identities of the two "personages" who appeared to Joseph Smith during the First Vision event.

• 15 November 1868: President George A. Smith (now a counselor in the First Presidency) accurately related many First Vision story elements - as published in the Church’s official history - but mistakenly mixed them together with several accurate angel Moroni story elements - as published in the Church’s official history. He said:

1. Joseph Smith was 14 or 15 years old

2. There was a revival involving Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists

3. There was a scramble after the revival to secure converts

4. Unpleasant feelings were the result

5. Joseph Smith had attended those meetings

6. Joseph Smith prayed because of James 1:5

7. The Lord sent an angel to Joseph Smith in answer to his prayer

8. Joseph Smith asked the angel which church was right and the angel said they were all wrong

9. The vision was repeated several times and Joseph Smith was commanded to tell his father about it

10. Joseph Smith’s father told him to observe the instructions that were given to him.

• 20 June 1869: President George A. Smith mistakenly mixed together accurate First Vision story elements with accurate angel Moroni story elements. He said:

1. Some members of Joseph Smith’s family joined the Presbyterians

2. Joseph Smith reflected much on religion

3. Joseph Smith was astonished at the bad feelings manifested at the end of the reformation

4. Joseph Smith was led to pray because of James 1:5

5. Joseph Smith had a vision of a holy angel

6. Joseph Smith asked which of the denominations in the vicinity was right

7. Joseph Smith was told that they had all gone astray and wandered into darkness

8. Joseph Smith was instructed not to join any of them

9. Joseph Smith was told that God was about to restore the gospel in its simplicity and purity.

• 1869: President George A. Smith published a small pamphlet which contained the Wentworth Letter account of the First Vision.

• 20 November 1870: President George A. Smith accurately related several First Vision story elements at the pulpit. This time he did NOT mistakenly include any angel Moroni story elements in his narrative.

1. The Lord revealed Himself to Joseph Smith

2. Joseph Smith was puzzled by hearing learned men preach about different doctrines

3. Joseph Smith saw the learned men quarrel over converts

4. Joseph Smith prayed humbly, with faith, because of James 1:5

5. Joseph Smith asked the Lord which was the right way

6. The Lord showed Joseph Smith the right way.

The timeline shows that George A. Smith was accurate in relating First Vision details when he had a physical text to read from. The pattern that can be seen in the timeline above is that George A. Smith was accurate in relating First Vision details when he had a physical text to read from or was formally writing down historical matters; he was accurate on many points when he was talking extemporaneously; he corrected himself after delivering erroneous verbal remarks.

Orson Hyde

Orson Hyde said during a General Conference in 1854:"Some one may say, 'If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Saviour come himself to communicate this intelligence to the world?'" Was Orson Hyde unaware of the details of the Father and Son appearing to Joseph in the First Vision?

When Elder Orson Hyde was discoursing in General Conference on 6 April 1854 he was NOT speaking about the First Vision (a story he knew very well from previously published literature) - he was trying to teach the Latter-day Saints about "the grand harvest" which would take place during "the winding up scene" and the part that "angels" would have in it. The evidence suggests that Elder Hyde was utilizing section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants as the basis for some of his remarks about angels, NOT about the events that took place within the Sacred Grove.

The proper context of Elder Hyde’s remarks can be determined simply by examining his opening statement. There he makes it clear that because it was currently the season for sowing crops he wanted to discourse on some parable imagery found in the 13th chapter of the New Testament book of Matthew (verses 1–9, 36–43).

Elder Hyde specifically mentioned that the "angels" were the agency through which "this reaping dispensation was committed to the children of men" and that these heavenly beings held "the keys of this dispensation." With these words he may well have been referring to the episode recorded in section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants where angels tell Joseph Smith - "the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands" (v. 16). They also "committed the gospel of the dispensation of Abraham" to the Prophet (v. 12) and, furthermore, they "committed unto [him] the keys of the gathering" (v. 11) - [harvest imagery]. Elder Hyde said in his sermon that the angels brought the news that "the time of the end was drawing nigh" and, significantly, the last of the angels to appear in D&C 110 said, "the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors" (v. 16).

A summary of Elder Hyde’s comments shows that he did not intend to speak about the First Vision at all; he wanted to impress upon that Saints that the latter-day work of gathering (the figurative harvest imagery) was inaugurated by angels and they would also play a role in the figurative separation of the wheat and the tares.

• 15 June 1841:

When Orson Hyde was in London, England on a mission he wrote to the Prophet Joseph Smith and informed him: “I have written a book to publish in the German language, setting forth our doctrine and principles in as clear and concise a manner as I possibly could. After giving the history of the rise of the Church, in something the manner that Br[other] O[rson] Pratt did, I have written a snug little article upon every point of doctrine believed by the Saints.”

Elder Hyde is referring to Elder Pratt’s missionary tract - published in Scotland in 1840 - called An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, which contained the first known published, full-length description of the First Vision event. Elder Hyde’s pamphlet contained a recounting of the First Vision that was very similar to the one found in Elder Pratt’s pamphlet.

• 1842: Elder Hyde’s pamphlet was published in Frankfurt, Germany sometime in the year 1842. It was called Eine Stimme aus dem Schoose der Erde (A Cry from the Wilderness, A Voice from the Depths of the Earth). This was the first known foreign-language rendition of the First Vision story.

• 6 February 1851: Elder Lorenzo Snow wrote a letter to Elder Orson Hyde on 6 February 1851 from Geneva, Switzerland and informed him that his own missionary tract called “The Voice of Joseph” (written between 23 July 1850 and 6 September 1850) was circulating in both Italy and Switzerland.

From the above information it can be determined that before Orson Hyde made his 1854 remarks he was aware of at least three orthodox First Vision accounts produced by members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

1. Orson Pratt’s missionary tract [published in 1840],

2. his own missionary tract [written in 1841], and

3. Lorenzo Snow’s missionary tract [written in 1850].

It is high unlikely that Elder Hyde did not possess an accurate understanding of the First Vision story before the year 1854.

Heber C. Kimball

Critics quote a portion of a sermon delivered at the Salt Lake Tabernacle on November 8, 1857 by Heber C. Kimball, in which it appears that he denies that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith. Here is what the critics quote:

Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come himself and call, but he sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates. Did God come himself? No; he sent Moroni and told him there was a record,…Well, then Peter comes along. Why did not God come? He sent Peter, do you not see? Why did he not come along? Because he has agents to attend to his business, and he sits upon his throne and is established at head-quarters, and tells this man, ‘Go and do this;’ and it is behind the vail just as it is here. You have got to learn that.

The very same evidence that was used in the construction of the anti-Mormon charge about Heber C. Kimball can be used to topple it. Kimball's remarks about God not appearing cannot be legitimately applied to Joseph Smith's First Vision experience. This argument is a classic example of taking an isolated statement out of its proper context and drawing a false conclusion based upon faulty evidence. When the entire sermon of Heber C. Kimball is examined in detail, the anti-Mormon argument quickly falls apart. Here is the full quote:

If God confers gifts, and blessings, and promises, and glories, and immortality, and eternal lives, and you receive them and treasure them up, then our Father and our God has joy in that man. . . . Do you not see [that] God is not pleased with any man except those that receive the gifts, and treasure them up, and practice upon those gifts? And He gives those gifts, and confers them upon you, and will have us to practice upon them. Now, these principles to me are plain and simple.

Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come Himself and call, but He sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates. Did God come Himself? No: He sent Moroni and told him there was a record, and says he, "That record is [a] matter that pertains to the Lamanites, and it tells when their fathers came out of Jerusalem, and how they came, and all about it; and, says he, "If you will do as I tell you, I will confer a gift upon you." Well, he conferred it upon him, because Joseph said he would do as he told him. "I want you to go to work and take the Urim and Thummim, and translate this book, and have it published, that this nation may read it." Do you not see, by Joseph receiving the gift that was conferred upon him, you and I have that record?

Well, when this took place, Peter came along to him and gave power and authority, and, says he, "You go and baptize Oliver Cowdery, and then ordain him a priest." He did it, and do you not see his works were in exercise? Then Oliver, having authority, baptized Joseph and ordained him a priest. Do you not see the works, how they manifest themselves?

Well, then Peter comes along. Why did not God come? He sent Peter, do you not see? Why did He not come along? Because He has agents to attend to His business, and He sits upon His throne and is established at headquarters, and tells this man, 'Go and do this'; and it is behind the veil just as it is here."

From a careful reading of this text it can be concluded that Kimball was talking about (#1) the appearance of the angel Moroni in 1823 in connection with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and (#2) the appearance of the apostle Peter in 1829 in connection with the bestowal of the Melchizedek Priesthood. He was talking about two heavenly beings bestowing "gifts" upon Joseph Smith on two different occasions; he was saying that in these two instances God sent His agents to accomplish particular works. However, Heber C. Kimball said absolutely nothing in this statement about the First Vision which occurred in 1820.

It cannot be successfully argued that Heber C. Kimball was not aware of the First Vision story by this point in time either, since no less a person than President Brigham Young recorded in his journal that Brother Kimball was present with several other General Authorities about two and a half months earlier (13 August 1857) when they placed a copy of the Pearl of Great Price inside the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple. This volume contained the 1838 account of the First Vision which was published by the Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois in 1842. There were also several other publications placed inside the temple cornerstone which rehearsed the First Vision story. These included:

• Lorenzo Snow's The Voice of Joseph
• Various tracts from Orson Pratt
• Franklin D. Richards's Compendium
• John Jaques's Catechism for Children
• Millennial Star, vol. 14 supplement
• Millennial Star, vol. 3

Joseph’s Age at the Time of First Vision

When Latter-day Saints describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision, they commonly note that he was very young at the time—about fourteen years old. This understanding comes primarily from Joseph’s later, more formal accounts, but it is also supported by his earliest writings when those documents are read in their historical context.

The most familiar account of the First Vision is Joseph Smith’s 1838–39 history, now canonized as Joseph Smith–History in the Pearl of Great Price. In that narrative, Joseph explained that the vision occurred in the spring of 1820, when he was “an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age.” Since Joseph was born on December 23, 1805, he would have been 14 years old during the spring of 1820, turning fifteen later that year.

Joseph’s other firsthand retellings of the First Vision are consistent with this timeline. In his 1835 account, he said the experience happened when he was “about 14 years old.” In an 1842 summary prepared for publication, he likewise stated that he was “about fourteen years of age” when the event took place. Even in casual recollections to acquaintances, Joseph repeatedly described the First Vision as something that happened in his early teens.

The main question arises from Joseph’s earliest known account, written in 1832. In this document, Joseph (or his scribe) stated that the vision occurred while he was “in the sixteenth year of my age.” At first glance, some readers assume this must mean Joseph was fifteen or even sixteen years old, creating a potential conflict with his later accounts. However, this phrase requires careful historical interpretation.

In early nineteenth-century English usage, saying someone was “in their sixteenth year” did not mean they were sixteen years old. Rather, it meant they had begun the year leading toward their sixteenth birthday. In other words, a person entered their “sixteenth year” immediately after turning fifteen, just as an infant is said to be “in their first year” from birth, not at age one. This older way of reckoning age was common in Joseph Smith’s day and appears in other contemporary documents.

Additionally, the phrase in the 1832 manuscript appears to have been inserted between the lines, suggesting it may reflect later clarification rather than careful chronological precision. The 1832 account itself was not intended as a polished autobiography; instead, it was a private, spiritual narrative focused on Joseph’s sins, repentance, and forgiveness, not on exact dates.

In the 1832 account, Frederick G. Williams inserted the "in the 16th year of my age" above Joseph's text after Joseph had already written it. (See: "History, circa Summer 1832," The Joseph Smith Papers)

When Joseph’s accounts are considered together, they present a coherent picture. He consistently placed the First Vision in the spring of 1820 and consistently described himself as about fourteen years old at the time. The wording in the 1832 account fits comfortably within this framework once historical language and age-counting conventions are taken into account.

In short, the documentary evidence supports the traditional understanding: Joseph Smith was fourteen years old when he experienced the First Vision, a young teenager seeking divine guidance in a time of religious confusion.

Joseph’s Motivation for Seeking Guidance from God

The multiple accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision have long attracted both devotion and criticism. Among the most common objections is the claim that Joseph changed his stated reason for praying over time. Critics argue that his earliest account (1832) presents a desire for forgiveness of sins as his primary motivation, while later accounts—especially the 1838 narrative canonized in the Pearl of Great Price—emphasize a desire to know which church was true. According to this view, the differing emphases represent a contradiction and suggest that the First Vision story evolved over time.

A close reading of all the available evidence, however, shows that this conclusion rests on an oversimplified comparison of selective phrases rather than on the full substance of the documents. When the accounts are read carefully and in their historical and religious context, Joseph Smith’s motivations appear consistent rather than contradictory. From the beginning, he expressed two closely related concerns: a desire to be forgiven of sins and a desire to worship God correctly by affiliating with the true church.

The Core Claim of the Criticism

Critics typically contrast two statements:

• 1832 account: “I cried unto the Lord for mercy, for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy.”
• 1838 account: “My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join.”

From these statements alone, critics conclude that Joseph originally prayed only for forgiveness and later revised his story to include questions about church authority. This comparison, however, strips both texts of their surrounding explanations and ignores the broader religious assumptions of Joseph Smith’s world.

A Close Reading of the 1832 Account

The 1832 account, partly written in Joseph Smith’s own hand, devotes significant space to describing the spiritual journey that led him to prayer. Far from portraying a narrow concern with personal guilt alone, the account reveals a young man grappling with multiple, interconnected questions.

Between the ages of twelve and fifteen, Joseph became deeply concerned about “the welfare of [his] immortal soul.” His search of the scriptures led him to compare biblical Christianity with the behavior and teachings of the denominations around him. This comparison caused him to “marvel exceedingly” and grieve that those who professed religion did not live in a manner consistent with scripture. Joseph further concluded—based on both scripture study and personal observation—that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.” He mourned not only for his own sins, but also “for the sins of the world,” reflecting concern for widespread religious corruption, not merely individual failure.

Only after recounting all of these considerations does Joseph explain why he prayed: “When I considered all these things… therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy.” His prayer was a response to the cumulative weight of doctrinal confusion, perceived apostasy, concern for correct worship, and personal conviction of sin.

In other words, forgiveness of sins was not the sole motivation for prayer—it was part of a broader religious crisis.

Forgiveness of Sins and the “True Church” in Joseph’s Religious World

Understanding Joseph Smith’s motivations requires recognizing an important feature of early nineteenth-century American Christianity. As historian Christopher C. Jones has observed, Joseph’s accounts strongly resemble Methodist conversion narratives, in which forgiveness of sins and correct church affiliation were inseparable. In Joseph’s religious culture, one found forgiveness by joining the right church and adhering to correct doctrine.

Under this framework, asking God for forgiveness inherently involved asking God which church—and which teachings—were correct. The two concerns rode in tandem, not in competition. Thus, even if the 1832 account emphasizes repentance language, it does not exclude institutional or doctrinal concerns. On the contrary, the account explicitly laments the failure of existing denominations to embody New Testament Christianity.

Significantly, in the vision itself, Joseph is told not merely that his sins are forgiven, but that “the world lieth in sin” and that religious leaders “draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me,” echoing Matthew 15:8–9. This language points beyond personal forgiveness toward a general apostasy and the need for divine restoration.

Scriptural Allusions and the Broader Apostasy Theme

The 1832 account also draws on scriptural language that Joseph later revisited during his translation of the Bible—particularly in JST Psalm 14. That psalm laments the loss of truth in the last days, declaring that “none doeth good” because religious teachers have gone astray. Scholars such as Joseph Fielding McConkie, Matthew Brown, Don Bradley, and Walker Wright have noted that Joseph’s JST rendering of Psalm 14 closely parallels themes in the First Vision and may even have influenced the language of his early history.

These parallels reinforce the idea that Joseph’s concern was not simply moral failure among individuals, but doctrinal corruption among religious teachers and institutions. Under this reading, the 1832 account implicitly addresses the same “which church is true?” question that later accounts state more explicitly.

The Later Accounts: Emphasis Without Contradiction

Joseph Smith’s later narrations of the First Vision vary in detail depending on audience and purpose. The 1835 account includes both concerns explicitly: uncertainty about which religious system was right and the declaration that his sins were forgiven. The 1838 account foregrounds religious confusion and the question of church authority but still alludes to “many other things” said during the vision that are not recorded—leaving room for experiences, such as forgiveness, described elsewhere.

Similarly, third-party retellings by Orson Pratt (1840) and Orson Hyde (1842) combine both themes: preparation for a future state, concern for salvation, confusion among denominations, and assurance of divine favor.

Rather than showing a shift in motivation, these accounts show selective emphasis, shaped by context and audience. None of them deny either concern; each highlights different aspects of the same religious struggle.

The claim that Joseph Smith changed his motivation for seeking revelation does not survive careful scrutiny. Across all accounts, Joseph presents himself as a young man profoundly concerned with salvation—how to prepare for eternity, how to worship God correctly, and how to receive forgiveness of sins. In his worldview, these were not separate questions but variations on the same theme. Differences among the First Vision accounts reflect changes in emphasis, audience, and narrative purpose—not contradiction. When read in context and within the religious culture of Joseph Smith’s time, the accounts form a coherent and internally consistent explanation of why he went to the grove to pray in 1820.

Rather than depicting an evolving fabrication, the evidence shows a stable core story: Joseph Smith sought divine guidance because he believed his soul—and the religious world around him—were in need of correction that only God could provide.

Knowing if God Existed

A frequently repeated claim in critical discussions of early Latter-day Saint history is that Oliver Cowdery taught that Joseph Smith did not even know whether a “Supreme Being” existed prior to 1823, thereby implying ignorance of God before the visit of the angel Moroni. This claim is based on a selective and decontextualized reading of Oliver Cowdery’s Church history, published in installments in the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate beginning in late 1834. When read carefully and in full historical context, Oliver’s account does not deny Joseph Smith’s First Vision, nor does it suggest that Joseph was an atheist prior to Moroni’s visit. Instead, it reflects a complex narrative strategy, one that presupposes Joseph’s earlier divine encounter while choosing not to narrate it directly.

Oliver Cowdery’s 1834–1835 History

In December 1834, Oliver Cowdery began publishing a formal history of the Church in the Messenger and Advocate. In the first installment, Oliver accurately placed Joseph Smith at fourteen years of age during a period of intense religious excitement and revivalism. He described the surrounding sectarian contention and Joseph’s deep concern for his soul—an account that clearly parallels Joseph Smith’s own descriptions of the circumstances leading to the First Vision.

This initial installment builds narrative momentum toward a revelatory experience. Readers naturally expect the culminating event to be Joseph’s First Vision. However, in the second installment, published in February 1835, Oliver takes an unexpected turn.

The Apparent Discontinuity in the Second Installment

In the February 1835 installment, Oliver abruptly “corrects” Joseph’s age from fourteen to seventeen and proceeds to describe the visit of the angel Moroni rather than the First Vision. He does not narrate the vision of the Father and the Son explicitly, creating the impression—at least for modern readers unfamiliar with the broader documentary record—that Oliver either did not know of the First Vision or believed the Moroni visitation to be Joseph’s earliest divine encounter.

This narrative move has led some critics to argue that the First Vision was a later invention and that Joseph initially believed Moroni’s appearance was his first theophany. However, this interpretation collapses under close examination of both Oliver’s own language and the documentary evidence available at the time he was writing.

Evidence That Oliver Knew of the First Vision

By 1834, Joseph Smith had already recorded an account of his First Vision in his 1832 history, in which he explicitly stated that he “saw the Lord.” There is substantial evidence that Oliver Cowdery had access to this document while preparing his history. Not only was Oliver serving as Church historian at the time, but there are also striking verbal and thematic correlations between Joseph’s 1832 account, Oliver’s 1834–1835 history, and Joseph’s 1835 journal entry describing the same events.

Rather than being ignorant of the First Vision, Oliver appears to have assumed its reality and authority—so much so that he felt no need to retell it in detail. Instead, he refers to it obliquely before continuing his narrative with Moroni’s visit.

“If a Supreme Being Did Exist”: What Oliver Actually Meant

The most frequently misunderstood statement in Oliver’s February 1835 installment occurs when he minimizes the earlier religious excitement and writes that Joseph sought:

a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him.

This sentence is often cited as evidence that Joseph doubted the existence of God prior to 1823. However, the grammatical structure and narrative framing show that Oliver is referring retrospectively to Joseph’s earlier state of concern, not his condition at age seventeen. The “religious excitement” is explicitly described as a past experience, tied to Joseph’s youth and spiritual anxiety, not as his settled worldview.

Immediately following this statement, Oliver affirms that Joseph’s seeking had already been answered. He writes:

This, most assuredly, was correct—it was right. The Lord has said, long since… that for him who knocks it shall be opened.

The phrase “long since” signals that the divine response occurred prior to the events Oliver is about to describe—namely, the visit of Moroni. In other words, Oliver is assuring readers that Joseph’s earlier plea for divine confirmation had already been answered, even though Oliver does not recount the vision explicitly.

An Intentional Narrative Shift, Not a Denial

Oliver Cowdery’s decision to move directly to Moroni’s visit after alluding to Joseph’s earlier divine encounter appears to be a stylistic and narrative choice, not a theological one. The second installment functions as a transition from Joseph’s preparatory spiritual experiences to the beginning of his prophetic commission tied to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Far from denying the First Vision, Oliver signals its reality while choosing to focus on subsequent events. His language affirms that something decisive and correct had already taken place in Joseph’s life—a divine response consistent with Joseph Smith’s own accounts.

Oliver Cowdery did not claim that Joseph Smith lacked belief in a Supreme Being until 1823, nor did he deny or replace the First Vision with Moroni’s appearance. When read carefully, Oliver’s history presupposes Joseph’s earlier encounter with God and reflects familiarity with Joseph’s 1832 account. The much-discussed phrase “if a Supreme being did exist” describes Joseph’s earlier religious questioning, not his final understanding.

Rather than undermining Joseph Smith’s First Vision, Oliver Cowdery’s history quietly affirms it—demonstrating that by the mid-1830s, the experience was known, authoritative, and foundational, even when not retold in full detail.

Were All the Churches False or Not?

One of the most persistent criticisms of Joseph Smith’s First Vision accounts is the claim that he had already concluded—before going to the grove to pray—that all churches were false. According to this argument, statements in Joseph’s earliest account (1832) indicate that he had already determined that “there was no society or denomination” built upon the New Testament. This, critics argue, contradicts later accounts in which Joseph expresses uncertainty about which church was true and even surprise upon being told by God to join none of them.

A careful examination of the historical record shows that this criticism rests on a false dilemma. Joseph Smith did not enter the grove having definitively decided that all churches everywhere were false. Rather, the evidence consistently portrays a young seeker who had become deeply disillusioned with the denominations known to him, yet remained uncertain about his duty and still hoped that God would identify the true path.

The Claim of Contradiction

Critics typically point to an apparent tension between two sets of statements:

• 1832 account: Joseph states that through scripture study he learned that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.”
• 1835 and 1838 accounts: Joseph repeatedly says that he “knew not who was right or who was wrong” and that his object in praying was to know “which of all the sects was right.”

From this contrast, critics argue that Joseph had already concluded that all churches were false in 1832 but later revised his story to portray himself as uncertain in order to heighten the drama or doctrinal implications of the First Vision.

This conclusion, however, misunderstands both the scope of Joseph’s early conclusions and the language he used to describe them.

What Joseph Smith Actually Concluded Before Praying

The 1832 account explains how Joseph reached his preliminary conclusions. From roughly age twelve onward, he studied the Bible and compared it to what he observed among the Christian denominations in his area. His conclusions were based on his “intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations,” not on abstract knowledge of Christianity worldwide.

When Joseph wrote that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ,” the context suggests a judgment about the denominations with which he was familiar, not a settled conclusion about every church on earth. This reading is reinforced by contemporaneous evidence. An 1832 newspaper report stated that Joseph “had not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them, and being in doubt what his duty was, he had recourse to prayer.”

In other words, Joseph’s scripture study had led him to doubt the adequacy of the denominations he knew—but not to certainty about what he should do instead. His conclusions intensified his confusion rather than resolved it.

Doubt and Uncertainty in the Later Accounts

This same uncertainty appears consistently in Joseph’s later accounts. In his 1835 diary entry, he wrote that he “knew not who was right or who was wrong” and felt it was “of the first importance” to determine the truth because of the eternal consequences involved. In the 1838 account, he explained that he was too young and inexperienced “to come to any certain conclusion who was right, and who was wrong,” despite his growing concerns about religious corruption.

This is not a retreat from an earlier certainty but an acknowledgment that Joseph’s personal conclusions were insufficient. The fact that he had already identified serious doctrinal problems did not give him confidence to act decisively. Instead, it convinced him that only divine revelation could settle the matter.

“Never Entered Into My Heart”: A Question of Meaning

One frequently cited objection focuses on Joseph Smith–History 1:18–19, where Joseph says that it “had never entered into my heart” that all churches were wrong, even though earlier he had asked whether “they were all wrong together.” At face value, this appears contradictory.

However, the phrase “entered into my heart” carries a specific meaning in Joseph’s religious vocabulary. Joseph used similar language elsewhere to describe moments of spiritual certainty rather than mere intellectual consideration. Something could pass through the mind without being fully accepted or internalized at the level of conviction.

Thus, Joseph could consider the possibility that the local denominations were all in error without emotionally or spiritually accepting the idea that no true church existed anywhere. Indeed, a draft history recorded by scribe Howard Coray clarifies this point by stating that Joseph “supposed that one of them were so”—that is, he still believed that at least one sect might be right, even if he had doubts.

The Scope of Joseph’s Question: Local or Universal?

Another key insight comes from reading Joseph Smith–History 1:10–18 as a continuous thought rather than isolated verses. In the passages immediately preceding Joseph’s famous question, he specifically names the Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists as the denominations contending around him. His question—“Who of all these parties are right?”—naturally refers back to those groups.

Read this way, Joseph was asking whether the prominent denominations in his area were correct—or whether they were all mistaken—not whether Christianity itself had entirely vanished from the earth. If so, the later instruction to “join none of them” because all were wrong—apparently without geographical or denominational limitation—could well have been surprising and spiritually jarring.

Orson Pratt and the Broader Religious World

Orson Pratt’s 1840 account further undermines the idea that Joseph had already settled the question. Pratt reports that Joseph reflected on the existence of “many hundreds of different denominations” worldwide and wondered whether any of them constituted the Church of Christ. This expansive view makes little sense if Joseph had already concluded that all churches everywhere were false. Instead, it portrays a young man hoping—however uncertainly—that somewhere among the many sects was the truth.

The historical evidence does not support the claim that Joseph Smith definitively concluded before the First Vision that all churches were false. Rather, it shows that he became increasingly aware of doctrinal corruption and religious division among the denominations he knew, which deepened his uncertainty and led him to seek divine guidance.

Joseph’s scripture study created a crisis, not a resolution. He doubted the churches around him, questioned the integrity of their teachings, and mourned the spiritual condition of the world—but he did not claim the authority or certainty to declare universal apostasy on his own. That determination, according to all accounts, came only through revelation.

Thus, far from undermining the First Vision narratives, the apparent tension between the accounts reflects a realistic process of religious searching: growing doubt, unresolved questions, and the decision to seek answers from God rather than from human judgment alone.

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

Response to claim: 30 - in the 1832 account, Joseph “mentioned that he had already concluded that all churches were in apostasy before he went into the woods to pray

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that in the 1832 account, Joseph “mentioned that he had already concluded that all churches were in apostasy before he went into the woods to pray, while the official account of 1842 states that he had not concluded this until God so informed him in the vision.”

Author's sources: Joseph Smith’s 1832 history and Joseph Smith-History in the Pearl of Great Price.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

First Vision | Alleged Contradictions

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unmasked/Chapter 3

Critics have routinely asserted that Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision contain contradictions. This page gathers all the alleged "contradictions" and clarifies each, showing that Joseph Smith's accounts can easily be harmonized. Critics have challenged the First Vision on other grounds. They argue that there are embellishments and that there are historical anachronisms in the accounts. If you do not find what you're looking for on this page, be sure to visit those two pages that address embellishments or historical anachronisms.

---

One or Two Personages?

Joseph Smith wrote several accounts of the First Vision. In his earliest written account from 1832, he speaks clearly about seeing “the Lord.” In later accounts, especially those from 1835 and 1838, he says that he saw two personages—God the Father and Jesus Christ. Some people claim this means Joseph changed his story. A closer look shows there are good reasons for the difference.

1. The 1832 Account Does Not Leave God the Father Out

Even though Joseph does not clearly describe God the Father appearing in the 1832 account, he still refers to Him. At the start of the history, Joseph says that the First Vision was when he was “receiving the testimony from on high.” In Joseph’s later accounts, that “testimony” is when God the Father introduces Jesus Christ and tells Joseph who He is.

In the Bible and other scripture, a voice that comes “from heaven” or “from on high” usually means God the Father. Joseph used this same kind of language both before and after 1832. Because of this, many scholars believe Joseph understood the voice “from on high” to be the Father, even if he did not describe seeing Him clearly in that part of the story.

There is also a line in the 1832 account that says, “the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.” Some readers think this could mean two beings—one who opens the heavens and another who appears.

2. Scripture Often Describes Visions This Way

Joseph’s way of writing in 1832 matches how visions are described in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. In the Book of Mormon, Lehi sees God on His throne, but Jesus Christ is the one who comes down and speaks to him. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul describes seeing Jesus Christ in a vision, but he does not say he saw God the Father.

Joseph appears to have modeled part of his 1832 account after Paul’s experience. Since Paul focused on Christ and not the Father, Joseph may have done the same in his first written telling.

3. The 1832 Account Focuses on Jesus Christ

In the 1832 account, the main message is that Joseph’s sins were forgiven. In later accounts, Jesus Christ is the one who delivers that message after the Father introduces Him. This suggests that Joseph focused on Jesus in 1832 because Jesus was the one speaking to him and forgiving his sins. The account is centered on what mattered most to Joseph at that moment.

4. Writing Was Harder for Joseph Than Speaking

Joseph wrote the 1832 account himself, and it was the first time he tried to write his life story. Later accounts were mostly spoken and written down by others. Joseph once said that writing felt limiting and difficult for him. Because of this, the 1832 account is shorter and less detailed. As time went on, Joseph became better at explaining what happened and used clearer language.

5. The Accounts Are More Alike Than Different

Three of Joseph’s four main accounts clearly say that two personages appeared. The 1832 account can still be read in a way that fits with the others. The differences mostly come from what Joseph chose to emphasize, not from changing what he experienced.

Fire or Light?

Critics sometimes argue that Joseph Smith contradicted himself by saying that a “pillar of fire” appeared in some accounts of the First Vision and a “pillar of light” in others. A closer look at scripture, language, and Joseph’s own explanations shows that this difference is not a real contradiction.

First, in the Bible and other scriptures, fire and light are often used to describe the same divine presence. God appears to Moses in a burning bush that gives light but does not burn the bush (Exodus 3). The Lord leads Israel with a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day (Exodus 13:21), showing that fire can function as a source of light. Heavenly beings are also described as shining, glowing, or appearing “like fire.” Because of this, describing a divine manifestation as either “fire” or “light” fits well within biblical language.

Second, Joseph’s own descriptions connect fire and light, rather than treating them as opposites. In the 1832 account, he says he saw a “pillar of fire, light above the brightness of the sun at noon day.” This wording already blends the two ideas. Joseph appears to be using familiar biblical imagery to describe something intensely bright and powerful, not trying to give a scientific description of its physical makeup.

Third, different words can describe the same experience, especially when someone is trying to put an extraordinary event into ordinary language. A blazing light can look like fire. Fire itself gives off light. When Joseph told or wrote about his experience in different settings and for different audiences, he used different words that pointed to the same reality—a brilliant, heavenly manifestation coming from God.

Fourth, Joseph’s later accounts aim for clarity, not correction. As he retold the story over time, he often chose words that would help listeners better understand what he saw. “Light” may have been clearer and less confusing than “fire” for later audiences, especially since the pillar did not burn anything. This is the same way people today might describe the same event differently depending on context, without contradicting themselves.

In short, the use of “pillar of fire” in one account and “pillar of light” in another reflects biblical style, natural language variation, and growing clarity, not a contradiction. Both expressions describe the same overwhelming divine glory and are completely consistent with each other and with scripture.

The Lord or an Angel?

Critics have occasionally asserted that early Latter-day Saint sources understood Joseph Smith’s First Vision to involve only an angel rather than God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is based on selective quotations from early leaders, secondary retellings, and the use of the term angel in some historical contexts. Joseph Smith’s own early accounts also contribute to the confusion. In his 1835 journal, Joseph referred to his youthful experiences as involving the “first visitation of angels” and stated that “many angels” were present. Importantly, the same account also explicitly describes the appearance of two personages, one of whom testified that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. A careful examination of the primary sources, however, shows that these references do not reflect a doctrinal misunderstanding of the First Vision, but instead arise from differences in terminology, abbreviated retellings, and occasional conflation of distinct visionary events.

Oliver Cowdery

Oliver Cowdery wrote an early history of Joseph Smith in 1834–1835 for a Church newspaper called the Messenger and Advocate. Critics often point to this account to claim that Cowdery believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. A closer and simpler reading of Cowdery’s writing shows that this conclusion goes beyond what Cowdery actually said.

In his account, Cowdery explained that Joseph Smith was confused by the many churches around him and wanted to know whether God really existed. Joseph prayed, and an angel appeared and told him that his sins were forgiven. Cowdery then moved directly into a story that closely matches later accounts of the angel Moroni and the gold plates. Because Cowdery did not clearly separate these events, some readers assume he believed there was only one vision.

However, Cowdery’s goal was not to give a detailed timeline of every vision Joseph experienced. He was writing a brief introduction to Joseph Smith’s calling as a prophet for readers who already believed Joseph was inspired by God. To keep the story simple, Cowdery combined Joseph’s early spiritual experiences into one shortened account focused on forgiveness and calling.

Cowdery even corrected himself in a later issue after realizing he had listed the wrong age for Joseph. This shows that the history was informal and not meant to be a carefully edited record. At no point did Cowdery say that Joseph had only one vision, nor did he deny later accounts that describe God the Father and Jesus Christ appearing to Joseph.

Cowdery’s writing also fits well with Joseph Smith’s own 1832 account, which focused more on Joseph seeking forgiveness than on explaining exactly who appeared to him. At the time, people often used the word angel in a general way to describe messages from heaven.

There is no evidence that Oliver Cowdery rejected or misunderstood the First Vision. His use of the word angel reflects a short, simplified retelling of Joseph Smith’s early experiences, not a different belief about what Joseph actually saw.

Brigham Young

Critics sometimes claim that Brigham Young believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is usually based on a short quotation taken from one of Young’s sermons, where he said, “The Lord did not come… but He did send His angel.” When read by itself, this line can sound like Brigham Young was denying the First Vision as it is taught today. However, reading the full sermon shows that this interpretation is incorrect:

The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him. (Journal of Discourses 2:170-171)

In the full statement, Brigham Young was not saying that the Lord never came to Joseph Smith. Instead, he was explaining how the Lord chose to reveal Himself. Young specifically said that the Lord did not come “with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory.” In other words, God did not appear with overwhelming display, grandeur, or force. Instead, He worked through humble means that matched Joseph Smith’s situation and character.

Brigham Young then explained that the Lord “did send His angel” to Joseph Smith. Importantly, the sentence continues by saying that the Lord informed Joseph that he should not join any of the religious sects because they were all wrong. Grammatically and logically, Brigham Young is describing the angel as the messenger, while the message itself comes from the Lord. This fits well with how divine communication is described throughout the Bible, where God often teaches or commands through angels.

It is also important to remember that Joseph Smith experienced multiple angelic visitations, especially from the angel Moroni. Brigham Young frequently spoke in broad, summarized language about Joseph’s early calling, often blending different events together to make a general point about divine authority rather than to give a detailed history lesson. His sermon was focused on showing that God chose a humble young man and guided him step by step, not on listing every vision in precise order.

There is strong evidence elsewhere that Brigham Young accepted Joseph Smith’s account of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ. He taught openly that God the Father and the Son were separate beings and fully supported Joseph Smith’s prophetic testimony. The selective use of one sentence from a longer sermon does not reflect Young’s overall beliefs.

When read in full and in context, Brigham Young’s words do not show confusion or disagreement about the First Vision. Instead, they show his effort to explain that God did not appear with dramatic display, but worked through angels and personal revelation to call Joseph Smith in a quiet and humble way.

Lucy Mack Smith

Some critics claim that Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, said his First Vision was only of an angel — and not of God the Father and Jesus Christ. This idea usually comes from a letter she wrote in January 1831. However, when her words are read carefully and in context, it is clear that she was not trying to describe the First Vision itself, and she did not deny that Joseph saw God and Christ. Lucy’s letter was not written to explain every vision Joseph had. Instead, she wrote it to introduce the Book of Mormon to her siblings and explain how that book came forth. In that letter, she quoted language that closely matches a passage in the Church’s Articles and Covenants (Doctrine and Covenants 20:5–8) — language that refers to God ministering to Joseph by an angel who gave him commandments and assistance to translate the plates.

Critics sometimes point to this and say Lucy was referring to the First Vision. But her letter does not say that the visit of the angel was Joseph’s first spiritual experience, nor does it suggest that he only saw an angel instead of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Instead, her wording reflects the common devotional style and biblical language of the time — where an angel is described as a messenger of God who brings instruction or revelation.

In her letter, Lucy actually echoes Doctrine & Covenants 20, received in 1830, that already assumes the First Vision had taken place and that Joseph had received a mission from the Lord. The letter closely paraphrases that text.

• D&C 20:5-8 (April 1830)

(verse 5) "After it was truly manifested unto this first elder [i.e., Joseph Smith] that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world; (verse 6) But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness; (verse 7) And gave unto him commandments which inspired him; (verse 8) And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon."(D&C 20꞉5-8

Compare this with Mother Smith's letter:

• LUCY'S LETTER (January 1831)

"Joseph, after repenting of his sins and humbling himself before God, was visited by an holy angel whose countenance was as lightning and whose garments were white above all whiteness, who gave unto him commandments which inspired him from on high; and who gave unto him, by the means of which was before prepared, that he should translate this book."

Compare both of the above sources with the Prophet's 1832 First Vision narrative:

• FIRST VISION ACCOUNT (September–November 1832)

"I felt to mourn for my own sins....[The Lord said during the First Vision,] 'thy sins are forgiven thee'....after many days I fell into transgression and sinned in many things....I called again upon the Lord and he shewed unto me a heavenly vision for behold an angel of the Lord came and stood before me....the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book therefore I commenced translating the characters."

Critics also fail to point out that almost exactly two months before Lucy Mack Smith wrote her letter, four Latter-day Saint missionaries (Oliver Cowdery, Orson Pratt, Peter Whitmer Jr. and Ziba Peterson) were publicly teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God "personally" and had received a commission from Him to preach true religion. It is specifically stated in the newspaper article that records this information that the missionaries made their comments about 1 November 1830 - shortly after the Church was formally organized. Some critics who do acknowledge this newspaper article attempt to dismiss it by calling it a "vague" reference, despite the clear wording that the missionaries taught that Joseph "had seen God frequently and personally."

Although one critic of the Church indicates that the letter was “unpublished until 1906”, he does not indicate where, or by whom. First published by Ben E. Rich, President of the Southern States Mission, the letter has been long available to interested students of Latter-day Saint history.

It should be noted that the Lucy Mack Smith letter was not even available for publication until just shortly before it appeared in print because it was in a descendant's possession. The introduction to the letter published in the Elders' Journal states: "The following very interesting and earnest gospel letter written by Lucy Mack Smith, mother of the Prophet Joseph, to her brother, Solomon Mack and his wife, was presented to President Joseph F. Smith a few weeks ago by Mrs. Candace Mack Barker, of Keene, N[ew] H[ampshire], a grand-daughter of Solomon Mack, to whom the letter is addressed. Mrs. Barker stated that it was her desire to place the letter in the hands of those who would appreciate its contents and preserve it as she felt it properly deserved." The idea that Lucy Mack was trying to hide a First Vision story is not supported by the historical record.

In short, Lucy Mack Smith’s 1831 letter does not say that Joseph’s First Vision was of an angel instead of God and Christ. Instead, she was summarizing part of the early Church’s understanding of how revelation came to Joseph — in this case, through an angelic messenger connected with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon — and she did not intend to give a full history of every heavenly manifestation Joseph experienced.

John Taylor

Some critics point to a statement by John Taylor in an 1879 sermon where he referred to Joseph Smith asking an angel which church was right. They claim this shows that Taylor was confused about the First Vision. While the quotation itself is accurate, it does not show confusion when it is placed in its full historical setting.

“…just as it was when the prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right. What, none of them? No. we will not stop to argue that question; the angel merely told him to join none of them that none of them were right.” (Journal of Discourses vol. 20, p. 167)

John Taylor was deeply familiar with the First Vision account. In fact, he served as the editor of the Church’s newspaper, Times and Seasons, in 1842–1843. During that time, he oversaw the publication of Joseph Smith’s history, which included the clear account of the First Vision describing the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ. It is not reasonable to believe that Taylor could publish this material without understanding or accepting it.

Taylor also had direct involvement with the Pearl of Great Price. The First Vision account was included in the Pearl of Great Price when the Pearl of Great Price was first published in 1851, and John Taylor approved a new American edition in 1878—only one year before the sermon critics quote. This shows that he was well aware of the official First Vision narrative.

On October 7th, 1878, nearly a year and a half before his 1879 sermon, he wrote a letter in behalf of the Quorum of the Twelve commenting upon a book by Edward W. Tullidge entitled Life of Joseph Smith. In that letter, he wrote:

God the Father and Jesus, with the ancient apostles, prophets, patriarchs and men of God have revealed to Joseph Smith principles on which hang the destinies of the world

Even more telling is that on the same day as the 1879 sermon where Taylor used the word angel, he also spoke of the Father, the Son, and Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith:

When Jesus sent forth his servants formerly he sent them to preach this Gospel. When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith, he had a priesthood conferred upon him which he conferred upon others for the purpose of manifesting the laws of life, the Gospel of the Son of God, by direct authority, that light and truth might be spread forth among all nations. (Journal of Discourses 20:257)

This shows that Taylor was not denying or forgetting the First Vision. Instead, he was speaking in a brief and informal way during part of his remarks and then referring more fully to Joseph’s experiences elsewhere.

So why did John Taylor use the word angel at all? The most likely explanation is that he was either speaking generally about divine messengers or using biblical language, where heavenly beings are sometimes called angels even when they act with God’s authority. In the Bible, for example, God Himself is sometimes called an “angel” because the word means messenger.

When all of John Taylor’s writings and sermons are considered together, it becomes clear that he fully understood and taught that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. The single reference to an angel does not reflect confusion, but rather a brief or symbolic use of language taken out of context.

Orson Pratt

Some critics claim that Orson Pratt believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is usually based on a short quote from an 1869 sermon where Pratt said that “God had sent an angel” to Joseph Smith:

“By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him;… This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)

When this short quote is read by itself, it can sound like Pratt misunderstood the First Vision. But reading the full sermon shows that this is not true. In the same sermon, Orson Pratt clearly explained what Joseph Smith said he saw.

By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him; that through his faith, prayers, and sincere repentance he had beheld a supernatural vision, that he had seen a pillar of fire descend from Heaven, and saw two glorious personages clothed upon with this pillar of fire, whose countenance shone like the sun at noonday; that he heard one of these personages say, pointing to the other, ‘This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.’ This occurred before this young man was fifteen years of age; and it was a startling announcement to make in the midst of a generation so completely given up to the traditions of their fathers; and when this was proclaimed by this young, unlettered boy to the priests and the religious societies in the State of New York, they laughed him to scorn. ‘What!’ said they, “visions and revelations in our day! God speaking to men in our day!” They looked upon him as deluded; they pointed the finger of scorn at him and warned their congregations against him. ‘The canon of Scripture is closed up; no more communications are to be expected from Heaven. The ancients saw heavenly visions and personages; they heard the voice of the Lord; they were inspired by the Holy Ghost to receive revelations, but behold no such thing is to be given to man in our day, neither has there been for many generations past.’ This was the style of the remarks made by religionists forty years ago. This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)

Pratt taught that Joseph saw a pillar of fire come down from heaven and that he saw two glorious personages inside that light. He described their faces shining like the sun and said that Joseph heard one of them speak while pointing to the other and saying, “This is my Beloved Son, hear ye him.” This is a clear and accurate description of the First Vision as Joseph Smith later recorded it.

Pratt’s use of the word angel at the beginning of the sermon does not replace or contradict this description. Instead, Pratt was summarizing Joseph’s message to the world in simple terms before explaining the details. In the 1800s, Church leaders often used the word angel to mean a messenger sent by God, especially when speaking to audiences who were unfamiliar with Latter-day Saint beliefs. At the end of the sermon, Pratt also spoke about Joseph Smith being visited “four years afterwards” by another angel. This clearly refers to the visit of the angel Moroni, showing that Pratt understood Joseph Smith had more than one heavenly experience and that these events were separate.

When the full sermon is read, it is clear that Orson Pratt knew and taught that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. The claim that Pratt was confused comes from quoting only a small part of his words and leaving out the section where he gives a detailed and correct explanation of the vision.

Wilford Woodruff

Wilford Woodruff is claimed to have said in an 1855 sermon that the Church had been established in the last days only by "the ministering of an holy angel", and not by the Father and the Son. The following text is the one used by critics of the Church to try and make it look like Apostle Wilford Woodruff taught something other than the traditional storyline of the First Vision.

"That same organization and gospel that Christ died for...is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy angel from God...The angel taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world...He told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of His kingdom in the world"

An examination of the original text of the sermon in question reveals that Wilford Woodruff's words are being taken out of context by critics. The bolded words below show which sections of the paragraph have been selected by detractors to try and rewrite history.

"The gospel has gone forth in our day in its true glory, power, order, and light, as it always did when God had a people among men that He acknowledged. That same organization and gospel that Christ died for, and the Apostles spilled their blood to vindicate, is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy ANGEL from God, out of heaven, who held converse with man, and revealed unto him the darkness that enveloped the world, and unfolded unto him the gross darkness that surrounded the nations, those scenes that should take place in this generation, and would follow each other in quick succession, even unto the coming of the Messiah. The ANGEL taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world; and THE LORD gave him commandments, and sealed upon him the Priesthood, and gave him power to administer the ordinances of the house of the Lord. HE told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of HIS kingdom in the world, that the people had turned away from HIS true order, changed the ordinances, and broken the everlasting covenant, and inherited lies and things wherein their was no profit. HE told him the time had come to lay the foundation for the establishment of the Kingdom of God among men for the last time, preparatory to the winding up scene" (emphasis added).

When critics break the above quotation into pieces in the manner that they have, they create an unrecognized problem for themselves. A careful reading of this material indicates that it was not the angel who told Joseph Smith that "the gospel was not among men"; it was the "the Lord" who provided this information (see the capitalized/italicized words above: ANGEL, THE LORD, HE, HIS). The anti-Mormons have, through their editing of the text, made it falsely appear as if the words of the angel and the Lord were one and the same. Woodruff's quote does not state that it was the angel who told Joseph Smith that "the gospel was not among men"; it was the "the Lord" who provided this information

The attempt to use Wilford Woodruff's words to obscure the details of Mormon history is a misguided one because the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that critics advocate. Elder Woodruff was in the second highest leadership quorum of the Church during the lifetime of Joseph Smith and never once did he mention that the Prophet told two different tales about the founding of the last gospel dispensation.

It is difficult to believe that Elder Wilford Woodruff did not have an accurate knowledge of the traditional First Vision story prior to his 1855 remarks since on 3 February 1842 he became the superintendent of the printing office in Nauvoo, Illinois where the Times and Seasons newspaper was published and remained there through at least 8 November 1843. These dates are significant because in-between them the Prophet Joseph Smith had two separate accounts of the First Vision printed on the pages of the Times and Seasons and so Elder Woodruff would have been the person who was ultimately responsible for their production and distribution.

• Times and Seasons 3 no. 9 (1 March 1842), 706–707. off-site GospeLink [Wentworth Letter First Vision account].
• Times and Seasons 3 no. 11 (1 April 1842), 748–749. off-site GospeLink [History of the Church official First Vision account].

It should also be noted that before Elder Woodruff made his 1855 remarks six other members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles published First Vision accounts: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852). It seems highly unlikely that Elder Woodruff would have remained unaware of these publications, which were made available to the public by his closest associates.

George A. Smith

Apostle George A. Smith said on two separate occasions that Joseph Smith's First Vision was of an "angel"—not of the Father and the Son. However, the argument that George A. Smith was simply not aware of a Father-and-Son First Vision account when he made his "angel" statements is nonsense since it can be shown from a documentary standpoint that he did indeed have prior knowledge of such a thing. An argument of ignorance is also untenable in light of the fact that Brother Smith's close associates in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had published orthodox recitals of the First Vision on nine different occasions long BEFORE he made his verbal missteps at the pulpit: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852).

This does not mean that Brother Smith was not aware of the Father and the Son appearing to the Prophet at the time that he made his anomalous remarks. The following timeline demonstrates that the Prophet's cousin was well aware of the official version of events. His out-of-place comments need to be evaluated from that perspective.

• 7 April 1854: Elder George A. Smith was appointed at General Conference to be the new Church Historian.

• 9 August 1855: Elder George A. Smith wrote to the editor of the Deseret News on 9 August 1855 and gave permission to publish a short Church history that was originally requested for inclusion in a non-Mormon publication, but which ultimately did not appear in print. When Elder Smith told the First Vision story in this history he said that Joseph Smith beheld "two glorious Beings" during the experience. The capitalization of the word "Beings" indicates that the two individuals were considered to be Deity. Elder Smith then went on to tell the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon which, he said, was instigated by an "angel" who was commissioned of God (Deseret News, vol. 5, no. 26, 5 September 1855, 2).

• 15 August 1855: The First Vision account as found in the Wentworth Letter (1 March 1842) was published in Salt Lake City in connection with the official History of the Church. This account speaks of "two glorious personages" and then later speaks of the single "angel" who was involved in revealing the existence of the Book of Mormon plates. Since Elder Smith was the Church Historian at this time he likely would have known about the content of this publication.

• 6 August 1862: Elder George A. Smith's short Church history (see 9 August 1855 above) was reprinted on the pages of the Deseret News. In this First Vision account Elder Smith referred to "two glorious Beings" and then later spoke of the single "angel" who was involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon

• 15 November 1864: In a discourse on historical matters, Elder George A. Smith quoted directly from the official First Vision account, which was first published in the Times and Seasons newspaper on 15 March 1842 and 1 April 1842. Elder Smith recited the line, “This is my Beloved Son, hear Him” – leaving no doubt that he knew the specific identities of the two "personages" who appeared to Joseph Smith during the First Vision event.

• 15 November 1868: President George A. Smith (now a counselor in the First Presidency) accurately related many First Vision story elements - as published in the Church’s official history - but mistakenly mixed them together with several accurate angel Moroni story elements - as published in the Church’s official history. He said:

1. Joseph Smith was 14 or 15 years old

2. There was a revival involving Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists

3. There was a scramble after the revival to secure converts

4. Unpleasant feelings were the result

5. Joseph Smith had attended those meetings

6. Joseph Smith prayed because of James 1:5

7. The Lord sent an angel to Joseph Smith in answer to his prayer

8. Joseph Smith asked the angel which church was right and the angel said they were all wrong

9. The vision was repeated several times and Joseph Smith was commanded to tell his father about it

10. Joseph Smith’s father told him to observe the instructions that were given to him.

• 20 June 1869: President George A. Smith mistakenly mixed together accurate First Vision story elements with accurate angel Moroni story elements. He said:

1. Some members of Joseph Smith’s family joined the Presbyterians

2. Joseph Smith reflected much on religion

3. Joseph Smith was astonished at the bad feelings manifested at the end of the reformation

4. Joseph Smith was led to pray because of James 1:5

5. Joseph Smith had a vision of a holy angel

6. Joseph Smith asked which of the denominations in the vicinity was right

7. Joseph Smith was told that they had all gone astray and wandered into darkness

8. Joseph Smith was instructed not to join any of them

9. Joseph Smith was told that God was about to restore the gospel in its simplicity and purity.

• 1869: President George A. Smith published a small pamphlet which contained the Wentworth Letter account of the First Vision.

• 20 November 1870: President George A. Smith accurately related several First Vision story elements at the pulpit. This time he did NOT mistakenly include any angel Moroni story elements in his narrative.

1. The Lord revealed Himself to Joseph Smith

2. Joseph Smith was puzzled by hearing learned men preach about different doctrines

3. Joseph Smith saw the learned men quarrel over converts

4. Joseph Smith prayed humbly, with faith, because of James 1:5

5. Joseph Smith asked the Lord which was the right way

6. The Lord showed Joseph Smith the right way.

The timeline shows that George A. Smith was accurate in relating First Vision details when he had a physical text to read from. The pattern that can be seen in the timeline above is that George A. Smith was accurate in relating First Vision details when he had a physical text to read from or was formally writing down historical matters; he was accurate on many points when he was talking extemporaneously; he corrected himself after delivering erroneous verbal remarks.

Orson Hyde

Orson Hyde said during a General Conference in 1854:"Some one may say, 'If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Saviour come himself to communicate this intelligence to the world?'" Was Orson Hyde unaware of the details of the Father and Son appearing to Joseph in the First Vision?

When Elder Orson Hyde was discoursing in General Conference on 6 April 1854 he was NOT speaking about the First Vision (a story he knew very well from previously published literature) - he was trying to teach the Latter-day Saints about "the grand harvest" which would take place during "the winding up scene" and the part that "angels" would have in it. The evidence suggests that Elder Hyde was utilizing section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants as the basis for some of his remarks about angels, NOT about the events that took place within the Sacred Grove.

The proper context of Elder Hyde’s remarks can be determined simply by examining his opening statement. There he makes it clear that because it was currently the season for sowing crops he wanted to discourse on some parable imagery found in the 13th chapter of the New Testament book of Matthew (verses 1–9, 36–43).

Elder Hyde specifically mentioned that the "angels" were the agency through which "this reaping dispensation was committed to the children of men" and that these heavenly beings held "the keys of this dispensation." With these words he may well have been referring to the episode recorded in section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants where angels tell Joseph Smith - "the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands" (v. 16). They also "committed the gospel of the dispensation of Abraham" to the Prophet (v. 12) and, furthermore, they "committed unto [him] the keys of the gathering" (v. 11) - [harvest imagery]. Elder Hyde said in his sermon that the angels brought the news that "the time of the end was drawing nigh" and, significantly, the last of the angels to appear in D&C 110 said, "the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors" (v. 16).

A summary of Elder Hyde’s comments shows that he did not intend to speak about the First Vision at all; he wanted to impress upon that Saints that the latter-day work of gathering (the figurative harvest imagery) was inaugurated by angels and they would also play a role in the figurative separation of the wheat and the tares.

• 15 June 1841:

When Orson Hyde was in London, England on a mission he wrote to the Prophet Joseph Smith and informed him: “I have written a book to publish in the German language, setting forth our doctrine and principles in as clear and concise a manner as I possibly could. After giving the history of the rise of the Church, in something the manner that Br[other] O[rson] Pratt did, I have written a snug little article upon every point of doctrine believed by the Saints.”

Elder Hyde is referring to Elder Pratt’s missionary tract - published in Scotland in 1840 - called An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, which contained the first known published, full-length description of the First Vision event. Elder Hyde’s pamphlet contained a recounting of the First Vision that was very similar to the one found in Elder Pratt’s pamphlet.

• 1842: Elder Hyde’s pamphlet was published in Frankfurt, Germany sometime in the year 1842. It was called Eine Stimme aus dem Schoose der Erde (A Cry from the Wilderness, A Voice from the Depths of the Earth). This was the first known foreign-language rendition of the First Vision story.

• 6 February 1851: Elder Lorenzo Snow wrote a letter to Elder Orson Hyde on 6 February 1851 from Geneva, Switzerland and informed him that his own missionary tract called “The Voice of Joseph” (written between 23 July 1850 and 6 September 1850) was circulating in both Italy and Switzerland.

From the above information it can be determined that before Orson Hyde made his 1854 remarks he was aware of at least three orthodox First Vision accounts produced by members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

1. Orson Pratt’s missionary tract [published in 1840],

2. his own missionary tract [written in 1841], and

3. Lorenzo Snow’s missionary tract [written in 1850].

It is high unlikely that Elder Hyde did not possess an accurate understanding of the First Vision story before the year 1854.

Heber C. Kimball

Critics quote a portion of a sermon delivered at the Salt Lake Tabernacle on November 8, 1857 by Heber C. Kimball, in which it appears that he denies that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith. Here is what the critics quote:

Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come himself and call, but he sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates. Did God come himself? No; he sent Moroni and told him there was a record,…Well, then Peter comes along. Why did not God come? He sent Peter, do you not see? Why did he not come along? Because he has agents to attend to his business, and he sits upon his throne and is established at head-quarters, and tells this man, ‘Go and do this;’ and it is behind the vail just as it is here. You have got to learn that.

The very same evidence that was used in the construction of the anti-Mormon charge about Heber C. Kimball can be used to topple it. Kimball's remarks about God not appearing cannot be legitimately applied to Joseph Smith's First Vision experience. This argument is a classic example of taking an isolated statement out of its proper context and drawing a false conclusion based upon faulty evidence. When the entire sermon of Heber C. Kimball is examined in detail, the anti-Mormon argument quickly falls apart. Here is the full quote:

If God confers gifts, and blessings, and promises, and glories, and immortality, and eternal lives, and you receive them and treasure them up, then our Father and our God has joy in that man. . . . Do you not see [that] God is not pleased with any man except those that receive the gifts, and treasure them up, and practice upon those gifts? And He gives those gifts, and confers them upon you, and will have us to practice upon them. Now, these principles to me are plain and simple.

Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come Himself and call, but He sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates. Did God come Himself? No: He sent Moroni and told him there was a record, and says he, "That record is [a] matter that pertains to the Lamanites, and it tells when their fathers came out of Jerusalem, and how they came, and all about it; and, says he, "If you will do as I tell you, I will confer a gift upon you." Well, he conferred it upon him, because Joseph said he would do as he told him. "I want you to go to work and take the Urim and Thummim, and translate this book, and have it published, that this nation may read it." Do you not see, by Joseph receiving the gift that was conferred upon him, you and I have that record?

Well, when this took place, Peter came along to him and gave power and authority, and, says he, "You go and baptize Oliver Cowdery, and then ordain him a priest." He did it, and do you not see his works were in exercise? Then Oliver, having authority, baptized Joseph and ordained him a priest. Do you not see the works, how they manifest themselves?

Well, then Peter comes along. Why did not God come? He sent Peter, do you not see? Why did He not come along? Because He has agents to attend to His business, and He sits upon His throne and is established at headquarters, and tells this man, 'Go and do this'; and it is behind the veil just as it is here."

From a careful reading of this text it can be concluded that Kimball was talking about (#1) the appearance of the angel Moroni in 1823 in connection with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and (#2) the appearance of the apostle Peter in 1829 in connection with the bestowal of the Melchizedek Priesthood. He was talking about two heavenly beings bestowing "gifts" upon Joseph Smith on two different occasions; he was saying that in these two instances God sent His agents to accomplish particular works. However, Heber C. Kimball said absolutely nothing in this statement about the First Vision which occurred in 1820.

It cannot be successfully argued that Heber C. Kimball was not aware of the First Vision story by this point in time either, since no less a person than President Brigham Young recorded in his journal that Brother Kimball was present with several other General Authorities about two and a half months earlier (13 August 1857) when they placed a copy of the Pearl of Great Price inside the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple. This volume contained the 1838 account of the First Vision which was published by the Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois in 1842. There were also several other publications placed inside the temple cornerstone which rehearsed the First Vision story. These included:

• Lorenzo Snow's The Voice of Joseph
• Various tracts from Orson Pratt
• Franklin D. Richards's Compendium
• John Jaques's Catechism for Children
• Millennial Star, vol. 14 supplement
• Millennial Star, vol. 3

Joseph’s Age at the Time of First Vision

When Latter-day Saints describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision, they commonly note that he was very young at the time—about fourteen years old. This understanding comes primarily from Joseph’s later, more formal accounts, but it is also supported by his earliest writings when those documents are read in their historical context.

The most familiar account of the First Vision is Joseph Smith’s 1838–39 history, now canonized as Joseph Smith–History in the Pearl of Great Price. In that narrative, Joseph explained that the vision occurred in the spring of 1820, when he was “an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age.” Since Joseph was born on December 23, 1805, he would have been 14 years old during the spring of 1820, turning fifteen later that year.

Joseph’s other firsthand retellings of the First Vision are consistent with this timeline. In his 1835 account, he said the experience happened when he was “about 14 years old.” In an 1842 summary prepared for publication, he likewise stated that he was “about fourteen years of age” when the event took place. Even in casual recollections to acquaintances, Joseph repeatedly described the First Vision as something that happened in his early teens.

The main question arises from Joseph’s earliest known account, written in 1832. In this document, Joseph (or his scribe) stated that the vision occurred while he was “in the sixteenth year of my age.” At first glance, some readers assume this must mean Joseph was fifteen or even sixteen years old, creating a potential conflict with his later accounts. However, this phrase requires careful historical interpretation.

In early nineteenth-century English usage, saying someone was “in their sixteenth year” did not mean they were sixteen years old. Rather, it meant they had begun the year leading toward their sixteenth birthday. In other words, a person entered their “sixteenth year” immediately after turning fifteen, just as an infant is said to be “in their first year” from birth, not at age one. This older way of reckoning age was common in Joseph Smith’s day and appears in other contemporary documents.

Additionally, the phrase in the 1832 manuscript appears to have been inserted between the lines, suggesting it may reflect later clarification rather than careful chronological precision. The 1832 account itself was not intended as a polished autobiography; instead, it was a private, spiritual narrative focused on Joseph’s sins, repentance, and forgiveness, not on exact dates.

In the 1832 account, Frederick G. Williams inserted the "in the 16th year of my age" above Joseph's text after Joseph had already written it. (See: "History, circa Summer 1832," The Joseph Smith Papers)

When Joseph’s accounts are considered together, they present a coherent picture. He consistently placed the First Vision in the spring of 1820 and consistently described himself as about fourteen years old at the time. The wording in the 1832 account fits comfortably within this framework once historical language and age-counting conventions are taken into account.

In short, the documentary evidence supports the traditional understanding: Joseph Smith was fourteen years old when he experienced the First Vision, a young teenager seeking divine guidance in a time of religious confusion.

Joseph’s Motivation for Seeking Guidance from God

The multiple accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision have long attracted both devotion and criticism. Among the most common objections is the claim that Joseph changed his stated reason for praying over time. Critics argue that his earliest account (1832) presents a desire for forgiveness of sins as his primary motivation, while later accounts—especially the 1838 narrative canonized in the Pearl of Great Price—emphasize a desire to know which church was true. According to this view, the differing emphases represent a contradiction and suggest that the First Vision story evolved over time.

A close reading of all the available evidence, however, shows that this conclusion rests on an oversimplified comparison of selective phrases rather than on the full substance of the documents. When the accounts are read carefully and in their historical and religious context, Joseph Smith’s motivations appear consistent rather than contradictory. From the beginning, he expressed two closely related concerns: a desire to be forgiven of sins and a desire to worship God correctly by affiliating with the true church.

The Core Claim of the Criticism

Critics typically contrast two statements:

• 1832 account: “I cried unto the Lord for mercy, for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy.”
• 1838 account: “My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join.”

From these statements alone, critics conclude that Joseph originally prayed only for forgiveness and later revised his story to include questions about church authority. This comparison, however, strips both texts of their surrounding explanations and ignores the broader religious assumptions of Joseph Smith’s world.

A Close Reading of the 1832 Account

The 1832 account, partly written in Joseph Smith’s own hand, devotes significant space to describing the spiritual journey that led him to prayer. Far from portraying a narrow concern with personal guilt alone, the account reveals a young man grappling with multiple, interconnected questions.

Between the ages of twelve and fifteen, Joseph became deeply concerned about “the welfare of [his] immortal soul.” His search of the scriptures led him to compare biblical Christianity with the behavior and teachings of the denominations around him. This comparison caused him to “marvel exceedingly” and grieve that those who professed religion did not live in a manner consistent with scripture. Joseph further concluded—based on both scripture study and personal observation—that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.” He mourned not only for his own sins, but also “for the sins of the world,” reflecting concern for widespread religious corruption, not merely individual failure.

Only after recounting all of these considerations does Joseph explain why he prayed: “When I considered all these things… therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy.” His prayer was a response to the cumulative weight of doctrinal confusion, perceived apostasy, concern for correct worship, and personal conviction of sin.

In other words, forgiveness of sins was not the sole motivation for prayer—it was part of a broader religious crisis.

Forgiveness of Sins and the “True Church” in Joseph’s Religious World

Understanding Joseph Smith’s motivations requires recognizing an important feature of early nineteenth-century American Christianity. As historian Christopher C. Jones has observed, Joseph’s accounts strongly resemble Methodist conversion narratives, in which forgiveness of sins and correct church affiliation were inseparable. In Joseph’s religious culture, one found forgiveness by joining the right church and adhering to correct doctrine.

Under this framework, asking God for forgiveness inherently involved asking God which church—and which teachings—were correct. The two concerns rode in tandem, not in competition. Thus, even if the 1832 account emphasizes repentance language, it does not exclude institutional or doctrinal concerns. On the contrary, the account explicitly laments the failure of existing denominations to embody New Testament Christianity.

Significantly, in the vision itself, Joseph is told not merely that his sins are forgiven, but that “the world lieth in sin” and that religious leaders “draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me,” echoing Matthew 15:8–9. This language points beyond personal forgiveness toward a general apostasy and the need for divine restoration.

Scriptural Allusions and the Broader Apostasy Theme

The 1832 account also draws on scriptural language that Joseph later revisited during his translation of the Bible—particularly in JST Psalm 14. That psalm laments the loss of truth in the last days, declaring that “none doeth good” because religious teachers have gone astray. Scholars such as Joseph Fielding McConkie, Matthew Brown, Don Bradley, and Walker Wright have noted that Joseph’s JST rendering of Psalm 14 closely parallels themes in the First Vision and may even have influenced the language of his early history.

These parallels reinforce the idea that Joseph’s concern was not simply moral failure among individuals, but doctrinal corruption among religious teachers and institutions. Under this reading, the 1832 account implicitly addresses the same “which church is true?” question that later accounts state more explicitly.

The Later Accounts: Emphasis Without Contradiction

Joseph Smith’s later narrations of the First Vision vary in detail depending on audience and purpose. The 1835 account includes both concerns explicitly: uncertainty about which religious system was right and the declaration that his sins were forgiven. The 1838 account foregrounds religious confusion and the question of church authority but still alludes to “many other things” said during the vision that are not recorded—leaving room for experiences, such as forgiveness, described elsewhere.

Similarly, third-party retellings by Orson Pratt (1840) and Orson Hyde (1842) combine both themes: preparation for a future state, concern for salvation, confusion among denominations, and assurance of divine favor.

Rather than showing a shift in motivation, these accounts show selective emphasis, shaped by context and audience. None of them deny either concern; each highlights different aspects of the same religious struggle.

The claim that Joseph Smith changed his motivation for seeking revelation does not survive careful scrutiny. Across all accounts, Joseph presents himself as a young man profoundly concerned with salvation—how to prepare for eternity, how to worship God correctly, and how to receive forgiveness of sins. In his worldview, these were not separate questions but variations on the same theme. Differences among the First Vision accounts reflect changes in emphasis, audience, and narrative purpose—not contradiction. When read in context and within the religious culture of Joseph Smith’s time, the accounts form a coherent and internally consistent explanation of why he went to the grove to pray in 1820.

Rather than depicting an evolving fabrication, the evidence shows a stable core story: Joseph Smith sought divine guidance because he believed his soul—and the religious world around him—were in need of correction that only God could provide.

Knowing if God Existed

A frequently repeated claim in critical discussions of early Latter-day Saint history is that Oliver Cowdery taught that Joseph Smith did not even know whether a “Supreme Being” existed prior to 1823, thereby implying ignorance of God before the visit of the angel Moroni. This claim is based on a selective and decontextualized reading of Oliver Cowdery’s Church history, published in installments in the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate beginning in late 1834. When read carefully and in full historical context, Oliver’s account does not deny Joseph Smith’s First Vision, nor does it suggest that Joseph was an atheist prior to Moroni’s visit. Instead, it reflects a complex narrative strategy, one that presupposes Joseph’s earlier divine encounter while choosing not to narrate it directly.

Oliver Cowdery’s 1834–1835 History

In December 1834, Oliver Cowdery began publishing a formal history of the Church in the Messenger and Advocate. In the first installment, Oliver accurately placed Joseph Smith at fourteen years of age during a period of intense religious excitement and revivalism. He described the surrounding sectarian contention and Joseph’s deep concern for his soul—an account that clearly parallels Joseph Smith’s own descriptions of the circumstances leading to the First Vision.

This initial installment builds narrative momentum toward a revelatory experience. Readers naturally expect the culminating event to be Joseph’s First Vision. However, in the second installment, published in February 1835, Oliver takes an unexpected turn.

The Apparent Discontinuity in the Second Installment

In the February 1835 installment, Oliver abruptly “corrects” Joseph’s age from fourteen to seventeen and proceeds to describe the visit of the angel Moroni rather than the First Vision. He does not narrate the vision of the Father and the Son explicitly, creating the impression—at least for modern readers unfamiliar with the broader documentary record—that Oliver either did not know of the First Vision or believed the Moroni visitation to be Joseph’s earliest divine encounter.

This narrative move has led some critics to argue that the First Vision was a later invention and that Joseph initially believed Moroni’s appearance was his first theophany. However, this interpretation collapses under close examination of both Oliver’s own language and the documentary evidence available at the time he was writing.

Evidence That Oliver Knew of the First Vision

By 1834, Joseph Smith had already recorded an account of his First Vision in his 1832 history, in which he explicitly stated that he “saw the Lord.” There is substantial evidence that Oliver Cowdery had access to this document while preparing his history. Not only was Oliver serving as Church historian at the time, but there are also striking verbal and thematic correlations between Joseph’s 1832 account, Oliver’s 1834–1835 history, and Joseph’s 1835 journal entry describing the same events.

Rather than being ignorant of the First Vision, Oliver appears to have assumed its reality and authority—so much so that he felt no need to retell it in detail. Instead, he refers to it obliquely before continuing his narrative with Moroni’s visit.

“If a Supreme Being Did Exist”: What Oliver Actually Meant

The most frequently misunderstood statement in Oliver’s February 1835 installment occurs when he minimizes the earlier religious excitement and writes that Joseph sought:

a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him.

This sentence is often cited as evidence that Joseph doubted the existence of God prior to 1823. However, the grammatical structure and narrative framing show that Oliver is referring retrospectively to Joseph’s earlier state of concern, not his condition at age seventeen. The “religious excitement” is explicitly described as a past experience, tied to Joseph’s youth and spiritual anxiety, not as his settled worldview.

Immediately following this statement, Oliver affirms that Joseph’s seeking had already been answered. He writes:

This, most assuredly, was correct—it was right. The Lord has said, long since… that for him who knocks it shall be opened.

The phrase “long since” signals that the divine response occurred prior to the events Oliver is about to describe—namely, the visit of Moroni. In other words, Oliver is assuring readers that Joseph’s earlier plea for divine confirmation had already been answered, even though Oliver does not recount the vision explicitly.

An Intentional Narrative Shift, Not a Denial

Oliver Cowdery’s decision to move directly to Moroni’s visit after alluding to Joseph’s earlier divine encounter appears to be a stylistic and narrative choice, not a theological one. The second installment functions as a transition from Joseph’s preparatory spiritual experiences to the beginning of his prophetic commission tied to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Far from denying the First Vision, Oliver signals its reality while choosing to focus on subsequent events. His language affirms that something decisive and correct had already taken place in Joseph’s life—a divine response consistent with Joseph Smith’s own accounts.

Oliver Cowdery did not claim that Joseph Smith lacked belief in a Supreme Being until 1823, nor did he deny or replace the First Vision with Moroni’s appearance. When read carefully, Oliver’s history presupposes Joseph’s earlier encounter with God and reflects familiarity with Joseph’s 1832 account. The much-discussed phrase “if a Supreme being did exist” describes Joseph’s earlier religious questioning, not his final understanding.

Rather than undermining Joseph Smith’s First Vision, Oliver Cowdery’s history quietly affirms it—demonstrating that by the mid-1830s, the experience was known, authoritative, and foundational, even when not retold in full detail.

Were All the Churches False or Not?

One of the most persistent criticisms of Joseph Smith’s First Vision accounts is the claim that he had already concluded—before going to the grove to pray—that all churches were false. According to this argument, statements in Joseph’s earliest account (1832) indicate that he had already determined that “there was no society or denomination” built upon the New Testament. This, critics argue, contradicts later accounts in which Joseph expresses uncertainty about which church was true and even surprise upon being told by God to join none of them.

A careful examination of the historical record shows that this criticism rests on a false dilemma. Joseph Smith did not enter the grove having definitively decided that all churches everywhere were false. Rather, the evidence consistently portrays a young seeker who had become deeply disillusioned with the denominations known to him, yet remained uncertain about his duty and still hoped that God would identify the true path.

The Claim of Contradiction

Critics typically point to an apparent tension between two sets of statements:

• 1832 account: Joseph states that through scripture study he learned that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.”
• 1835 and 1838 accounts: Joseph repeatedly says that he “knew not who was right or who was wrong” and that his object in praying was to know “which of all the sects was right.”

From this contrast, critics argue that Joseph had already concluded that all churches were false in 1832 but later revised his story to portray himself as uncertain in order to heighten the drama or doctrinal implications of the First Vision.

This conclusion, however, misunderstands both the scope of Joseph’s early conclusions and the language he used to describe them.

What Joseph Smith Actually Concluded Before Praying

The 1832 account explains how Joseph reached his preliminary conclusions. From roughly age twelve onward, he studied the Bible and compared it to what he observed among the Christian denominations in his area. His conclusions were based on his “intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations,” not on abstract knowledge of Christianity worldwide.

When Joseph wrote that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ,” the context suggests a judgment about the denominations with which he was familiar, not a settled conclusion about every church on earth. This reading is reinforced by contemporaneous evidence. An 1832 newspaper report stated that Joseph “had not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them, and being in doubt what his duty was, he had recourse to prayer.”

In other words, Joseph’s scripture study had led him to doubt the adequacy of the denominations he knew—but not to certainty about what he should do instead. His conclusions intensified his confusion rather than resolved it.

Doubt and Uncertainty in the Later Accounts

This same uncertainty appears consistently in Joseph’s later accounts. In his 1835 diary entry, he wrote that he “knew not who was right or who was wrong” and felt it was “of the first importance” to determine the truth because of the eternal consequences involved. In the 1838 account, he explained that he was too young and inexperienced “to come to any certain conclusion who was right, and who was wrong,” despite his growing concerns about religious corruption.

This is not a retreat from an earlier certainty but an acknowledgment that Joseph’s personal conclusions were insufficient. The fact that he had already identified serious doctrinal problems did not give him confidence to act decisively. Instead, it convinced him that only divine revelation could settle the matter.

“Never Entered Into My Heart”: A Question of Meaning

One frequently cited objection focuses on Joseph Smith–History 1:18–19, where Joseph says that it “had never entered into my heart” that all churches were wrong, even though earlier he had asked whether “they were all wrong together.” At face value, this appears contradictory.

However, the phrase “entered into my heart” carries a specific meaning in Joseph’s religious vocabulary. Joseph used similar language elsewhere to describe moments of spiritual certainty rather than mere intellectual consideration. Something could pass through the mind without being fully accepted or internalized at the level of conviction.

Thus, Joseph could consider the possibility that the local denominations were all in error without emotionally or spiritually accepting the idea that no true church existed anywhere. Indeed, a draft history recorded by scribe Howard Coray clarifies this point by stating that Joseph “supposed that one of them were so”—that is, he still believed that at least one sect might be right, even if he had doubts.

The Scope of Joseph’s Question: Local or Universal?

Another key insight comes from reading Joseph Smith–History 1:10–18 as a continuous thought rather than isolated verses. In the passages immediately preceding Joseph’s famous question, he specifically names the Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists as the denominations contending around him. His question—“Who of all these parties are right?”—naturally refers back to those groups.

Read this way, Joseph was asking whether the prominent denominations in his area were correct—or whether they were all mistaken—not whether Christianity itself had entirely vanished from the earth. If so, the later instruction to “join none of them” because all were wrong—apparently without geographical or denominational limitation—could well have been surprising and spiritually jarring.

Orson Pratt and the Broader Religious World

Orson Pratt’s 1840 account further undermines the idea that Joseph had already settled the question. Pratt reports that Joseph reflected on the existence of “many hundreds of different denominations” worldwide and wondered whether any of them constituted the Church of Christ. This expansive view makes little sense if Joseph had already concluded that all churches everywhere were false. Instead, it portrays a young man hoping—however uncertainly—that somewhere among the many sects was the truth.

The historical evidence does not support the claim that Joseph Smith definitively concluded before the First Vision that all churches were false. Rather, it shows that he became increasingly aware of doctrinal corruption and religious division among the denominations he knew, which deepened his uncertainty and led him to seek divine guidance.

Joseph’s scripture study created a crisis, not a resolution. He doubted the churches around him, questioned the integrity of their teachings, and mourned the spiritual condition of the world—but he did not claim the authority or certainty to declare universal apostasy on his own. That determination, according to all accounts, came only through revelation.

Thus, far from undermining the First Vision narratives, the apparent tension between the accounts reflects a realistic process of religious searching: growing doubt, unresolved questions, and the decision to seek answers from God rather than from human judgment alone.

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

First Vision | Alleged Contradictions

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unmasked/Chapter 3

Critics have routinely asserted that Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision contain contradictions. This page gathers all the alleged "contradictions" and clarifies each, showing that Joseph Smith's accounts can easily be harmonized. Critics have challenged the First Vision on other grounds. They argue that there are embellishments and that there are historical anachronisms in the accounts. If you do not find what you're looking for on this page, be sure to visit those two pages that address embellishments or historical anachronisms.

---

One or Two Personages?

Joseph Smith wrote several accounts of the First Vision. In his earliest written account from 1832, he speaks clearly about seeing “the Lord.” In later accounts, especially those from 1835 and 1838, he says that he saw two personages—God the Father and Jesus Christ. Some people claim this means Joseph changed his story. A closer look shows there are good reasons for the difference.

1. The 1832 Account Does Not Leave God the Father Out

Even though Joseph does not clearly describe God the Father appearing in the 1832 account, he still refers to Him. At the start of the history, Joseph says that the First Vision was when he was “receiving the testimony from on high.” In Joseph’s later accounts, that “testimony” is when God the Father introduces Jesus Christ and tells Joseph who He is.

In the Bible and other scripture, a voice that comes “from heaven” or “from on high” usually means God the Father. Joseph used this same kind of language both before and after 1832. Because of this, many scholars believe Joseph understood the voice “from on high” to be the Father, even if he did not describe seeing Him clearly in that part of the story.

There is also a line in the 1832 account that says, “the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.” Some readers think this could mean two beings—one who opens the heavens and another who appears.

2. Scripture Often Describes Visions This Way

Joseph’s way of writing in 1832 matches how visions are described in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. In the Book of Mormon, Lehi sees God on His throne, but Jesus Christ is the one who comes down and speaks to him. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul describes seeing Jesus Christ in a vision, but he does not say he saw God the Father.

Joseph appears to have modeled part of his 1832 account after Paul’s experience. Since Paul focused on Christ and not the Father, Joseph may have done the same in his first written telling.

3. The 1832 Account Focuses on Jesus Christ

In the 1832 account, the main message is that Joseph’s sins were forgiven. In later accounts, Jesus Christ is the one who delivers that message after the Father introduces Him. This suggests that Joseph focused on Jesus in 1832 because Jesus was the one speaking to him and forgiving his sins. The account is centered on what mattered most to Joseph at that moment.

4. Writing Was Harder for Joseph Than Speaking

Joseph wrote the 1832 account himself, and it was the first time he tried to write his life story. Later accounts were mostly spoken and written down by others. Joseph once said that writing felt limiting and difficult for him. Because of this, the 1832 account is shorter and less detailed. As time went on, Joseph became better at explaining what happened and used clearer language.

5. The Accounts Are More Alike Than Different

Three of Joseph’s four main accounts clearly say that two personages appeared. The 1832 account can still be read in a way that fits with the others. The differences mostly come from what Joseph chose to emphasize, not from changing what he experienced.

Fire or Light?

Critics sometimes argue that Joseph Smith contradicted himself by saying that a “pillar of fire” appeared in some accounts of the First Vision and a “pillar of light” in others. A closer look at scripture, language, and Joseph’s own explanations shows that this difference is not a real contradiction.

First, in the Bible and other scriptures, fire and light are often used to describe the same divine presence. God appears to Moses in a burning bush that gives light but does not burn the bush (Exodus 3). The Lord leads Israel with a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day (Exodus 13:21), showing that fire can function as a source of light. Heavenly beings are also described as shining, glowing, or appearing “like fire.” Because of this, describing a divine manifestation as either “fire” or “light” fits well within biblical language.

Second, Joseph’s own descriptions connect fire and light, rather than treating them as opposites. In the 1832 account, he says he saw a “pillar of fire, light above the brightness of the sun at noon day.” This wording already blends the two ideas. Joseph appears to be using familiar biblical imagery to describe something intensely bright and powerful, not trying to give a scientific description of its physical makeup.

Third, different words can describe the same experience, especially when someone is trying to put an extraordinary event into ordinary language. A blazing light can look like fire. Fire itself gives off light. When Joseph told or wrote about his experience in different settings and for different audiences, he used different words that pointed to the same reality—a brilliant, heavenly manifestation coming from God.

Fourth, Joseph’s later accounts aim for clarity, not correction. As he retold the story over time, he often chose words that would help listeners better understand what he saw. “Light” may have been clearer and less confusing than “fire” for later audiences, especially since the pillar did not burn anything. This is the same way people today might describe the same event differently depending on context, without contradicting themselves.

In short, the use of “pillar of fire” in one account and “pillar of light” in another reflects biblical style, natural language variation, and growing clarity, not a contradiction. Both expressions describe the same overwhelming divine glory and are completely consistent with each other and with scripture.

The Lord or an Angel?

Critics have occasionally asserted that early Latter-day Saint sources understood Joseph Smith’s First Vision to involve only an angel rather than God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is based on selective quotations from early leaders, secondary retellings, and the use of the term angel in some historical contexts. Joseph Smith’s own early accounts also contribute to the confusion. In his 1835 journal, Joseph referred to his youthful experiences as involving the “first visitation of angels” and stated that “many angels” were present. Importantly, the same account also explicitly describes the appearance of two personages, one of whom testified that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. A careful examination of the primary sources, however, shows that these references do not reflect a doctrinal misunderstanding of the First Vision, but instead arise from differences in terminology, abbreviated retellings, and occasional conflation of distinct visionary events.

Oliver Cowdery

Oliver Cowdery wrote an early history of Joseph Smith in 1834–1835 for a Church newspaper called the Messenger and Advocate. Critics often point to this account to claim that Cowdery believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. A closer and simpler reading of Cowdery’s writing shows that this conclusion goes beyond what Cowdery actually said.

In his account, Cowdery explained that Joseph Smith was confused by the many churches around him and wanted to know whether God really existed. Joseph prayed, and an angel appeared and told him that his sins were forgiven. Cowdery then moved directly into a story that closely matches later accounts of the angel Moroni and the gold plates. Because Cowdery did not clearly separate these events, some readers assume he believed there was only one vision.

However, Cowdery’s goal was not to give a detailed timeline of every vision Joseph experienced. He was writing a brief introduction to Joseph Smith’s calling as a prophet for readers who already believed Joseph was inspired by God. To keep the story simple, Cowdery combined Joseph’s early spiritual experiences into one shortened account focused on forgiveness and calling.

Cowdery even corrected himself in a later issue after realizing he had listed the wrong age for Joseph. This shows that the history was informal and not meant to be a carefully edited record. At no point did Cowdery say that Joseph had only one vision, nor did he deny later accounts that describe God the Father and Jesus Christ appearing to Joseph.

Cowdery’s writing also fits well with Joseph Smith’s own 1832 account, which focused more on Joseph seeking forgiveness than on explaining exactly who appeared to him. At the time, people often used the word angel in a general way to describe messages from heaven.

There is no evidence that Oliver Cowdery rejected or misunderstood the First Vision. His use of the word angel reflects a short, simplified retelling of Joseph Smith’s early experiences, not a different belief about what Joseph actually saw.

Brigham Young

Critics sometimes claim that Brigham Young believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is usually based on a short quotation taken from one of Young’s sermons, where he said, “The Lord did not come… but He did send His angel.” When read by itself, this line can sound like Brigham Young was denying the First Vision as it is taught today. However, reading the full sermon shows that this interpretation is incorrect:

The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him. (Journal of Discourses 2:170-171)

In the full statement, Brigham Young was not saying that the Lord never came to Joseph Smith. Instead, he was explaining how the Lord chose to reveal Himself. Young specifically said that the Lord did not come “with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory.” In other words, God did not appear with overwhelming display, grandeur, or force. Instead, He worked through humble means that matched Joseph Smith’s situation and character.

Brigham Young then explained that the Lord “did send His angel” to Joseph Smith. Importantly, the sentence continues by saying that the Lord informed Joseph that he should not join any of the religious sects because they were all wrong. Grammatically and logically, Brigham Young is describing the angel as the messenger, while the message itself comes from the Lord. This fits well with how divine communication is described throughout the Bible, where God often teaches or commands through angels.

It is also important to remember that Joseph Smith experienced multiple angelic visitations, especially from the angel Moroni. Brigham Young frequently spoke in broad, summarized language about Joseph’s early calling, often blending different events together to make a general point about divine authority rather than to give a detailed history lesson. His sermon was focused on showing that God chose a humble young man and guided him step by step, not on listing every vision in precise order.

There is strong evidence elsewhere that Brigham Young accepted Joseph Smith’s account of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ. He taught openly that God the Father and the Son were separate beings and fully supported Joseph Smith’s prophetic testimony. The selective use of one sentence from a longer sermon does not reflect Young’s overall beliefs.

When read in full and in context, Brigham Young’s words do not show confusion or disagreement about the First Vision. Instead, they show his effort to explain that God did not appear with dramatic display, but worked through angels and personal revelation to call Joseph Smith in a quiet and humble way.

Lucy Mack Smith

Some critics claim that Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, said his First Vision was only of an angel — and not of God the Father and Jesus Christ. This idea usually comes from a letter she wrote in January 1831. However, when her words are read carefully and in context, it is clear that she was not trying to describe the First Vision itself, and she did not deny that Joseph saw God and Christ. Lucy’s letter was not written to explain every vision Joseph had. Instead, she wrote it to introduce the Book of Mormon to her siblings and explain how that book came forth. In that letter, she quoted language that closely matches a passage in the Church’s Articles and Covenants (Doctrine and Covenants 20:5–8) — language that refers to God ministering to Joseph by an angel who gave him commandments and assistance to translate the plates.

Critics sometimes point to this and say Lucy was referring to the First Vision. But her letter does not say that the visit of the angel was Joseph’s first spiritual experience, nor does it suggest that he only saw an angel instead of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Instead, her wording reflects the common devotional style and biblical language of the time — where an angel is described as a messenger of God who brings instruction or revelation.

In her letter, Lucy actually echoes Doctrine & Covenants 20, received in 1830, that already assumes the First Vision had taken place and that Joseph had received a mission from the Lord. The letter closely paraphrases that text.

• D&C 20:5-8 (April 1830)

(verse 5) "After it was truly manifested unto this first elder [i.e., Joseph Smith] that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world; (verse 6) But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness; (verse 7) And gave unto him commandments which inspired him; (verse 8) And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon."(D&C 20꞉5-8

Compare this with Mother Smith's letter:

• LUCY'S LETTER (January 1831)

"Joseph, after repenting of his sins and humbling himself before God, was visited by an holy angel whose countenance was as lightning and whose garments were white above all whiteness, who gave unto him commandments which inspired him from on high; and who gave unto him, by the means of which was before prepared, that he should translate this book."

Compare both of the above sources with the Prophet's 1832 First Vision narrative:

• FIRST VISION ACCOUNT (September–November 1832)

"I felt to mourn for my own sins....[The Lord said during the First Vision,] 'thy sins are forgiven thee'....after many days I fell into transgression and sinned in many things....I called again upon the Lord and he shewed unto me a heavenly vision for behold an angel of the Lord came and stood before me....the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book therefore I commenced translating the characters."

Critics also fail to point out that almost exactly two months before Lucy Mack Smith wrote her letter, four Latter-day Saint missionaries (Oliver Cowdery, Orson Pratt, Peter Whitmer Jr. and Ziba Peterson) were publicly teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God "personally" and had received a commission from Him to preach true religion. It is specifically stated in the newspaper article that records this information that the missionaries made their comments about 1 November 1830 - shortly after the Church was formally organized. Some critics who do acknowledge this newspaper article attempt to dismiss it by calling it a "vague" reference, despite the clear wording that the missionaries taught that Joseph "had seen God frequently and personally."

Although one critic of the Church indicates that the letter was “unpublished until 1906”, he does not indicate where, or by whom. First published by Ben E. Rich, President of the Southern States Mission, the letter has been long available to interested students of Latter-day Saint history.

It should be noted that the Lucy Mack Smith letter was not even available for publication until just shortly before it appeared in print because it was in a descendant's possession. The introduction to the letter published in the Elders' Journal states: "The following very interesting and earnest gospel letter written by Lucy Mack Smith, mother of the Prophet Joseph, to her brother, Solomon Mack and his wife, was presented to President Joseph F. Smith a few weeks ago by Mrs. Candace Mack Barker, of Keene, N[ew] H[ampshire], a grand-daughter of Solomon Mack, to whom the letter is addressed. Mrs. Barker stated that it was her desire to place the letter in the hands of those who would appreciate its contents and preserve it as she felt it properly deserved." The idea that Lucy Mack was trying to hide a First Vision story is not supported by the historical record.

In short, Lucy Mack Smith’s 1831 letter does not say that Joseph’s First Vision was of an angel instead of God and Christ. Instead, she was summarizing part of the early Church’s understanding of how revelation came to Joseph — in this case, through an angelic messenger connected with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon — and she did not intend to give a full history of every heavenly manifestation Joseph experienced.

John Taylor

Some critics point to a statement by John Taylor in an 1879 sermon where he referred to Joseph Smith asking an angel which church was right. They claim this shows that Taylor was confused about the First Vision. While the quotation itself is accurate, it does not show confusion when it is placed in its full historical setting.

“…just as it was when the prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right. What, none of them? No. we will not stop to argue that question; the angel merely told him to join none of them that none of them were right.” (Journal of Discourses vol. 20, p. 167)

John Taylor was deeply familiar with the First Vision account. In fact, he served as the editor of the Church’s newspaper, Times and Seasons, in 1842–1843. During that time, he oversaw the publication of Joseph Smith’s history, which included the clear account of the First Vision describing the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ. It is not reasonable to believe that Taylor could publish this material without understanding or accepting it.

Taylor also had direct involvement with the Pearl of Great Price. The First Vision account was included in the Pearl of Great Price when the Pearl of Great Price was first published in 1851, and John Taylor approved a new American edition in 1878—only one year before the sermon critics quote. This shows that he was well aware of the official First Vision narrative.

On October 7th, 1878, nearly a year and a half before his 1879 sermon, he wrote a letter in behalf of the Quorum of the Twelve commenting upon a book by Edward W. Tullidge entitled Life of Joseph Smith. In that letter, he wrote:

God the Father and Jesus, with the ancient apostles, prophets, patriarchs and men of God have revealed to Joseph Smith principles on which hang the destinies of the world

Even more telling is that on the same day as the 1879 sermon where Taylor used the word angel, he also spoke of the Father, the Son, and Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith:

When Jesus sent forth his servants formerly he sent them to preach this Gospel. When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith, he had a priesthood conferred upon him which he conferred upon others for the purpose of manifesting the laws of life, the Gospel of the Son of God, by direct authority, that light and truth might be spread forth among all nations. (Journal of Discourses 20:257)

This shows that Taylor was not denying or forgetting the First Vision. Instead, he was speaking in a brief and informal way during part of his remarks and then referring more fully to Joseph’s experiences elsewhere.

So why did John Taylor use the word angel at all? The most likely explanation is that he was either speaking generally about divine messengers or using biblical language, where heavenly beings are sometimes called angels even when they act with God’s authority. In the Bible, for example, God Himself is sometimes called an “angel” because the word means messenger.

When all of John Taylor’s writings and sermons are considered together, it becomes clear that he fully understood and taught that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. The single reference to an angel does not reflect confusion, but rather a brief or symbolic use of language taken out of context.

Orson Pratt

Some critics claim that Orson Pratt believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is usually based on a short quote from an 1869 sermon where Pratt said that “God had sent an angel” to Joseph Smith:

“By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him;… This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)

When this short quote is read by itself, it can sound like Pratt misunderstood the First Vision. But reading the full sermon shows that this is not true. In the same sermon, Orson Pratt clearly explained what Joseph Smith said he saw.

By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him; that through his faith, prayers, and sincere repentance he had beheld a supernatural vision, that he had seen a pillar of fire descend from Heaven, and saw two glorious personages clothed upon with this pillar of fire, whose countenance shone like the sun at noonday; that he heard one of these personages say, pointing to the other, ‘This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.’ This occurred before this young man was fifteen years of age; and it was a startling announcement to make in the midst of a generation so completely given up to the traditions of their fathers; and when this was proclaimed by this young, unlettered boy to the priests and the religious societies in the State of New York, they laughed him to scorn. ‘What!’ said they, “visions and revelations in our day! God speaking to men in our day!” They looked upon him as deluded; they pointed the finger of scorn at him and warned their congregations against him. ‘The canon of Scripture is closed up; no more communications are to be expected from Heaven. The ancients saw heavenly visions and personages; they heard the voice of the Lord; they were inspired by the Holy Ghost to receive revelations, but behold no such thing is to be given to man in our day, neither has there been for many generations past.’ This was the style of the remarks made by religionists forty years ago. This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)

Pratt taught that Joseph saw a pillar of fire come down from heaven and that he saw two glorious personages inside that light. He described their faces shining like the sun and said that Joseph heard one of them speak while pointing to the other and saying, “This is my Beloved Son, hear ye him.” This is a clear and accurate description of the First Vision as Joseph Smith later recorded it.

Pratt’s use of the word angel at the beginning of the sermon does not replace or contradict this description. Instead, Pratt was summarizing Joseph’s message to the world in simple terms before explaining the details. In the 1800s, Church leaders often used the word angel to mean a messenger sent by God, especially when speaking to audiences who were unfamiliar with Latter-day Saint beliefs. At the end of the sermon, Pratt also spoke about Joseph Smith being visited “four years afterwards” by another angel. This clearly refers to the visit of the angel Moroni, showing that Pratt understood Joseph Smith had more than one heavenly experience and that these events were separate.

When the full sermon is read, it is clear that Orson Pratt knew and taught that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. The claim that Pratt was confused comes from quoting only a small part of his words and leaving out the section where he gives a detailed and correct explanation of the vision.

Wilford Woodruff

Wilford Woodruff is claimed to have said in an 1855 sermon that the Church had been established in the last days only by "the ministering of an holy angel", and not by the Father and the Son. The following text is the one used by critics of the Church to try and make it look like Apostle Wilford Woodruff taught something other than the traditional storyline of the First Vision.

"That same organization and gospel that Christ died for...is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy angel from God...The angel taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world...He told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of His kingdom in the world"

An examination of the original text of the sermon in question reveals that Wilford Woodruff's words are being taken out of context by critics. The bolded words below show which sections of the paragraph have been selected by detractors to try and rewrite history.

"The gospel has gone forth in our day in its true glory, power, order, and light, as it always did when God had a people among men that He acknowledged. That same organization and gospel that Christ died for, and the Apostles spilled their blood to vindicate, is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy ANGEL from God, out of heaven, who held converse with man, and revealed unto him the darkness that enveloped the world, and unfolded unto him the gross darkness that surrounded the nations, those scenes that should take place in this generation, and would follow each other in quick succession, even unto the coming of the Messiah. The ANGEL taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world; and THE LORD gave him commandments, and sealed upon him the Priesthood, and gave him power to administer the ordinances of the house of the Lord. HE told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of HIS kingdom in the world, that the people had turned away from HIS true order, changed the ordinances, and broken the everlasting covenant, and inherited lies and things wherein their was no profit. HE told him the time had come to lay the foundation for the establishment of the Kingdom of God among men for the last time, preparatory to the winding up scene" (emphasis added).

When critics break the above quotation into pieces in the manner that they have, they create an unrecognized problem for themselves. A careful reading of this material indicates that it was not the angel who told Joseph Smith that "the gospel was not among men"; it was the "the Lord" who provided this information (see the capitalized/italicized words above: ANGEL, THE LORD, HE, HIS). The anti-Mormons have, through their editing of the text, made it falsely appear as if the words of the angel and the Lord were one and the same. Woodruff's quote does not state that it was the angel who told Joseph Smith that "the gospel was not among men"; it was the "the Lord" who provided this information

The attempt to use Wilford Woodruff's words to obscure the details of Mormon history is a misguided one because the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that critics advocate. Elder Woodruff was in the second highest leadership quorum of the Church during the lifetime of Joseph Smith and never once did he mention that the Prophet told two different tales about the founding of the last gospel dispensation.

It is difficult to believe that Elder Wilford Woodruff did not have an accurate knowledge of the traditional First Vision story prior to his 1855 remarks since on 3 February 1842 he became the superintendent of the printing office in Nauvoo, Illinois where the Times and Seasons newspaper was published and remained there through at least 8 November 1843. These dates are significant because in-between them the Prophet Joseph Smith had two separate accounts of the First Vision printed on the pages of the Times and Seasons and so Elder Woodruff would have been the person who was ultimately responsible for their production and distribution.

• Times and Seasons 3 no. 9 (1 March 1842), 706–707. off-site GospeLink [Wentworth Letter First Vision account].
• Times and Seasons 3 no. 11 (1 April 1842), 748–749. off-site GospeLink [History of the Church official First Vision account].

It should also be noted that before Elder Woodruff made his 1855 remarks six other members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles published First Vision accounts: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852). It seems highly unlikely that Elder Woodruff would have remained unaware of these publications, which were made available to the public by his closest associates.

George A. Smith

Apostle George A. Smith said on two separate occasions that Joseph Smith's First Vision was of an "angel"—not of the Father and the Son. However, the argument that George A. Smith was simply not aware of a Father-and-Son First Vision account when he made his "angel" statements is nonsense since it can be shown from a documentary standpoint that he did indeed have prior knowledge of such a thing. An argument of ignorance is also untenable in light of the fact that Brother Smith's close associates in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had published orthodox recitals of the First Vision on nine different occasions long BEFORE he made his verbal missteps at the pulpit: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852).

This does not mean that Brother Smith was not aware of the Father and the Son appearing to the Prophet at the time that he made his anomalous remarks. The following timeline demonstrates that the Prophet's cousin was well aware of the official version of events. His out-of-place comments need to be evaluated from that perspective.

• 7 April 1854: Elder George A. Smith was appointed at General Conference to be the new Church Historian.

• 9 August 1855: Elder George A. Smith wrote to the editor of the Deseret News on 9 August 1855 and gave permission to publish a short Church history that was originally requested for inclusion in a non-Mormon publication, but which ultimately did not appear in print. When Elder Smith told the First Vision story in this history he said that Joseph Smith beheld "two glorious Beings" during the experience. The capitalization of the word "Beings" indicates that the two individuals were considered to be Deity. Elder Smith then went on to tell the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon which, he said, was instigated by an "angel" who was commissioned of God (Deseret News, vol. 5, no. 26, 5 September 1855, 2).

• 15 August 1855: The First Vision account as found in the Wentworth Letter (1 March 1842) was published in Salt Lake City in connection with the official History of the Church. This account speaks of "two glorious personages" and then later speaks of the single "angel" who was involved in revealing the existence of the Book of Mormon plates. Since Elder Smith was the Church Historian at this time he likely would have known about the content of this publication.

• 6 August 1862: Elder George A. Smith's short Church history (see 9 August 1855 above) was reprinted on the pages of the Deseret News. In this First Vision account Elder Smith referred to "two glorious Beings" and then later spoke of the single "angel" who was involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon

• 15 November 1864: In a discourse on historical matters, Elder George A. Smith quoted directly from the official First Vision account, which was first published in the Times and Seasons newspaper on 15 March 1842 and 1 April 1842. Elder Smith recited the line, “This is my Beloved Son, hear Him” – leaving no doubt that he knew the specific identities of the two "personages" who appeared to Joseph Smith during the First Vision event.

• 15 November 1868: President George A. Smith (now a counselor in the First Presidency) accurately related many First Vision story elements - as published in the Church’s official history - but mistakenly mixed them together with several accurate angel Moroni story elements - as published in the Church’s official history. He said:

1. Joseph Smith was 14 or 15 years old

2. There was a revival involving Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists

3. There was a scramble after the revival to secure converts

4. Unpleasant feelings were the result

5. Joseph Smith had attended those meetings

6. Joseph Smith prayed because of James 1:5

7. The Lord sent an angel to Joseph Smith in answer to his prayer

8. Joseph Smith asked the angel which church was right and the angel said they were all wrong

9. The vision was repeated several times and Joseph Smith was commanded to tell his father about it

10. Joseph Smith’s father told him to observe the instructions that were given to him.

• 20 June 1869: President George A. Smith mistakenly mixed together accurate First Vision story elements with accurate angel Moroni story elements. He said:

1. Some members of Joseph Smith’s family joined the Presbyterians

2. Joseph Smith reflected much on religion

3. Joseph Smith was astonished at the bad feelings manifested at the end of the reformation

4. Joseph Smith was led to pray because of James 1:5

5. Joseph Smith had a vision of a holy angel

6. Joseph Smith asked which of the denominations in the vicinity was right

7. Joseph Smith was told that they had all gone astray and wandered into darkness

8. Joseph Smith was instructed not to join any of them

9. Joseph Smith was told that God was about to restore the gospel in its simplicity and purity.

• 1869: President George A. Smith published a small pamphlet which contained the Wentworth Letter account of the First Vision.

• 20 November 1870: President George A. Smith accurately related several First Vision story elements at the pulpit. This time he did NOT mistakenly include any angel Moroni story elements in his narrative.

1. The Lord revealed Himself to Joseph Smith

2. Joseph Smith was puzzled by hearing learned men preach about different doctrines

3. Joseph Smith saw the learned men quarrel over converts

4. Joseph Smith prayed humbly, with faith, because of James 1:5

5. Joseph Smith asked the Lord which was the right way

6. The Lord showed Joseph Smith the right way.

The timeline shows that George A. Smith was accurate in relating First Vision details when he had a physical text to read from. The pattern that can be seen in the timeline above is that George A. Smith was accurate in relating First Vision details when he had a physical text to read from or was formally writing down historical matters; he was accurate on many points when he was talking extemporaneously; he corrected himself after delivering erroneous verbal remarks.

Orson Hyde

Orson Hyde said during a General Conference in 1854:"Some one may say, 'If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Saviour come himself to communicate this intelligence to the world?'" Was Orson Hyde unaware of the details of the Father and Son appearing to Joseph in the First Vision?

When Elder Orson Hyde was discoursing in General Conference on 6 April 1854 he was NOT speaking about the First Vision (a story he knew very well from previously published literature) - he was trying to teach the Latter-day Saints about "the grand harvest" which would take place during "the winding up scene" and the part that "angels" would have in it. The evidence suggests that Elder Hyde was utilizing section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants as the basis for some of his remarks about angels, NOT about the events that took place within the Sacred Grove.

The proper context of Elder Hyde’s remarks can be determined simply by examining his opening statement. There he makes it clear that because it was currently the season for sowing crops he wanted to discourse on some parable imagery found in the 13th chapter of the New Testament book of Matthew (verses 1–9, 36–43).

Elder Hyde specifically mentioned that the "angels" were the agency through which "this reaping dispensation was committed to the children of men" and that these heavenly beings held "the keys of this dispensation." With these words he may well have been referring to the episode recorded in section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants where angels tell Joseph Smith - "the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands" (v. 16). They also "committed the gospel of the dispensation of Abraham" to the Prophet (v. 12) and, furthermore, they "committed unto [him] the keys of the gathering" (v. 11) - [harvest imagery]. Elder Hyde said in his sermon that the angels brought the news that "the time of the end was drawing nigh" and, significantly, the last of the angels to appear in D&C 110 said, "the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors" (v. 16).

A summary of Elder Hyde’s comments shows that he did not intend to speak about the First Vision at all; he wanted to impress upon that Saints that the latter-day work of gathering (the figurative harvest imagery) was inaugurated by angels and they would also play a role in the figurative separation of the wheat and the tares.

• 15 June 1841:

When Orson Hyde was in London, England on a mission he wrote to the Prophet Joseph Smith and informed him: “I have written a book to publish in the German language, setting forth our doctrine and principles in as clear and concise a manner as I possibly could. After giving the history of the rise of the Church, in something the manner that Br[other] O[rson] Pratt did, I have written a snug little article upon every point of doctrine believed by the Saints.”

Elder Hyde is referring to Elder Pratt’s missionary tract - published in Scotland in 1840 - called An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, which contained the first known published, full-length description of the First Vision event. Elder Hyde’s pamphlet contained a recounting of the First Vision that was very similar to the one found in Elder Pratt’s pamphlet.

• 1842: Elder Hyde’s pamphlet was published in Frankfurt, Germany sometime in the year 1842. It was called Eine Stimme aus dem Schoose der Erde (A Cry from the Wilderness, A Voice from the Depths of the Earth). This was the first known foreign-language rendition of the First Vision story.

• 6 February 1851: Elder Lorenzo Snow wrote a letter to Elder Orson Hyde on 6 February 1851 from Geneva, Switzerland and informed him that his own missionary tract called “The Voice of Joseph” (written between 23 July 1850 and 6 September 1850) was circulating in both Italy and Switzerland.

From the above information it can be determined that before Orson Hyde made his 1854 remarks he was aware of at least three orthodox First Vision accounts produced by members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

1. Orson Pratt’s missionary tract [published in 1840],

2. his own missionary tract [written in 1841], and

3. Lorenzo Snow’s missionary tract [written in 1850].

It is high unlikely that Elder Hyde did not possess an accurate understanding of the First Vision story before the year 1854.

Heber C. Kimball

Critics quote a portion of a sermon delivered at the Salt Lake Tabernacle on November 8, 1857 by Heber C. Kimball, in which it appears that he denies that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith. Here is what the critics quote:

Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come himself and call, but he sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates. Did God come himself? No; he sent Moroni and told him there was a record,…Well, then Peter comes along. Why did not God come? He sent Peter, do you not see? Why did he not come along? Because he has agents to attend to his business, and he sits upon his throne and is established at head-quarters, and tells this man, ‘Go and do this;’ and it is behind the vail just as it is here. You have got to learn that.

The very same evidence that was used in the construction of the anti-Mormon charge about Heber C. Kimball can be used to topple it. Kimball's remarks about God not appearing cannot be legitimately applied to Joseph Smith's First Vision experience. This argument is a classic example of taking an isolated statement out of its proper context and drawing a false conclusion based upon faulty evidence. When the entire sermon of Heber C. Kimball is examined in detail, the anti-Mormon argument quickly falls apart. Here is the full quote:

If God confers gifts, and blessings, and promises, and glories, and immortality, and eternal lives, and you receive them and treasure them up, then our Father and our God has joy in that man. . . . Do you not see [that] God is not pleased with any man except those that receive the gifts, and treasure them up, and practice upon those gifts? And He gives those gifts, and confers them upon you, and will have us to practice upon them. Now, these principles to me are plain and simple.

Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come Himself and call, but He sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates. Did God come Himself? No: He sent Moroni and told him there was a record, and says he, "That record is [a] matter that pertains to the Lamanites, and it tells when their fathers came out of Jerusalem, and how they came, and all about it; and, says he, "If you will do as I tell you, I will confer a gift upon you." Well, he conferred it upon him, because Joseph said he would do as he told him. "I want you to go to work and take the Urim and Thummim, and translate this book, and have it published, that this nation may read it." Do you not see, by Joseph receiving the gift that was conferred upon him, you and I have that record?

Well, when this took place, Peter came along to him and gave power and authority, and, says he, "You go and baptize Oliver Cowdery, and then ordain him a priest." He did it, and do you not see his works were in exercise? Then Oliver, having authority, baptized Joseph and ordained him a priest. Do you not see the works, how they manifest themselves?

Well, then Peter comes along. Why did not God come? He sent Peter, do you not see? Why did He not come along? Because He has agents to attend to His business, and He sits upon His throne and is established at headquarters, and tells this man, 'Go and do this'; and it is behind the veil just as it is here."

From a careful reading of this text it can be concluded that Kimball was talking about (#1) the appearance of the angel Moroni in 1823 in connection with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and (#2) the appearance of the apostle Peter in 1829 in connection with the bestowal of the Melchizedek Priesthood. He was talking about two heavenly beings bestowing "gifts" upon Joseph Smith on two different occasions; he was saying that in these two instances God sent His agents to accomplish particular works. However, Heber C. Kimball said absolutely nothing in this statement about the First Vision which occurred in 1820.

It cannot be successfully argued that Heber C. Kimball was not aware of the First Vision story by this point in time either, since no less a person than President Brigham Young recorded in his journal that Brother Kimball was present with several other General Authorities about two and a half months earlier (13 August 1857) when they placed a copy of the Pearl of Great Price inside the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple. This volume contained the 1838 account of the First Vision which was published by the Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois in 1842. There were also several other publications placed inside the temple cornerstone which rehearsed the First Vision story. These included:

• Lorenzo Snow's The Voice of Joseph
• Various tracts from Orson Pratt
• Franklin D. Richards's Compendium
• John Jaques's Catechism for Children
• Millennial Star, vol. 14 supplement
• Millennial Star, vol. 3

Joseph’s Age at the Time of First Vision

When Latter-day Saints describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision, they commonly note that he was very young at the time—about fourteen years old. This understanding comes primarily from Joseph’s later, more formal accounts, but it is also supported by his earliest writings when those documents are read in their historical context.

The most familiar account of the First Vision is Joseph Smith’s 1838–39 history, now canonized as Joseph Smith–History in the Pearl of Great Price. In that narrative, Joseph explained that the vision occurred in the spring of 1820, when he was “an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age.” Since Joseph was born on December 23, 1805, he would have been 14 years old during the spring of 1820, turning fifteen later that year.

Joseph’s other firsthand retellings of the First Vision are consistent with this timeline. In his 1835 account, he said the experience happened when he was “about 14 years old.” In an 1842 summary prepared for publication, he likewise stated that he was “about fourteen years of age” when the event took place. Even in casual recollections to acquaintances, Joseph repeatedly described the First Vision as something that happened in his early teens.

The main question arises from Joseph’s earliest known account, written in 1832. In this document, Joseph (or his scribe) stated that the vision occurred while he was “in the sixteenth year of my age.” At first glance, some readers assume this must mean Joseph was fifteen or even sixteen years old, creating a potential conflict with his later accounts. However, this phrase requires careful historical interpretation.

In early nineteenth-century English usage, saying someone was “in their sixteenth year” did not mean they were sixteen years old. Rather, it meant they had begun the year leading toward their sixteenth birthday. In other words, a person entered their “sixteenth year” immediately after turning fifteen, just as an infant is said to be “in their first year” from birth, not at age one. This older way of reckoning age was common in Joseph Smith’s day and appears in other contemporary documents.

Additionally, the phrase in the 1832 manuscript appears to have been inserted between the lines, suggesting it may reflect later clarification rather than careful chronological precision. The 1832 account itself was not intended as a polished autobiography; instead, it was a private, spiritual narrative focused on Joseph’s sins, repentance, and forgiveness, not on exact dates.

In the 1832 account, Frederick G. Williams inserted the "in the 16th year of my age" above Joseph's text after Joseph had already written it. (See: "History, circa Summer 1832," The Joseph Smith Papers)

When Joseph’s accounts are considered together, they present a coherent picture. He consistently placed the First Vision in the spring of 1820 and consistently described himself as about fourteen years old at the time. The wording in the 1832 account fits comfortably within this framework once historical language and age-counting conventions are taken into account.

In short, the documentary evidence supports the traditional understanding: Joseph Smith was fourteen years old when he experienced the First Vision, a young teenager seeking divine guidance in a time of religious confusion.

Joseph’s Motivation for Seeking Guidance from God

The multiple accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision have long attracted both devotion and criticism. Among the most common objections is the claim that Joseph changed his stated reason for praying over time. Critics argue that his earliest account (1832) presents a desire for forgiveness of sins as his primary motivation, while later accounts—especially the 1838 narrative canonized in the Pearl of Great Price—emphasize a desire to know which church was true. According to this view, the differing emphases represent a contradiction and suggest that the First Vision story evolved over time.

A close reading of all the available evidence, however, shows that this conclusion rests on an oversimplified comparison of selective phrases rather than on the full substance of the documents. When the accounts are read carefully and in their historical and religious context, Joseph Smith’s motivations appear consistent rather than contradictory. From the beginning, he expressed two closely related concerns: a desire to be forgiven of sins and a desire to worship God correctly by affiliating with the true church.

The Core Claim of the Criticism

Critics typically contrast two statements:

• 1832 account: “I cried unto the Lord for mercy, for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy.”
• 1838 account: “My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join.”

From these statements alone, critics conclude that Joseph originally prayed only for forgiveness and later revised his story to include questions about church authority. This comparison, however, strips both texts of their surrounding explanations and ignores the broader religious assumptions of Joseph Smith’s world.

A Close Reading of the 1832 Account

The 1832 account, partly written in Joseph Smith’s own hand, devotes significant space to describing the spiritual journey that led him to prayer. Far from portraying a narrow concern with personal guilt alone, the account reveals a young man grappling with multiple, interconnected questions.

Between the ages of twelve and fifteen, Joseph became deeply concerned about “the welfare of [his] immortal soul.” His search of the scriptures led him to compare biblical Christianity with the behavior and teachings of the denominations around him. This comparison caused him to “marvel exceedingly” and grieve that those who professed religion did not live in a manner consistent with scripture. Joseph further concluded—based on both scripture study and personal observation—that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.” He mourned not only for his own sins, but also “for the sins of the world,” reflecting concern for widespread religious corruption, not merely individual failure.

Only after recounting all of these considerations does Joseph explain why he prayed: “When I considered all these things… therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy.” His prayer was a response to the cumulative weight of doctrinal confusion, perceived apostasy, concern for correct worship, and personal conviction of sin.

In other words, forgiveness of sins was not the sole motivation for prayer—it was part of a broader religious crisis.

Forgiveness of Sins and the “True Church” in Joseph’s Religious World

Understanding Joseph Smith’s motivations requires recognizing an important feature of early nineteenth-century American Christianity. As historian Christopher C. Jones has observed, Joseph’s accounts strongly resemble Methodist conversion narratives, in which forgiveness of sins and correct church affiliation were inseparable. In Joseph’s religious culture, one found forgiveness by joining the right church and adhering to correct doctrine.

Under this framework, asking God for forgiveness inherently involved asking God which church—and which teachings—were correct. The two concerns rode in tandem, not in competition. Thus, even if the 1832 account emphasizes repentance language, it does not exclude institutional or doctrinal concerns. On the contrary, the account explicitly laments the failure of existing denominations to embody New Testament Christianity.

Significantly, in the vision itself, Joseph is told not merely that his sins are forgiven, but that “the world lieth in sin” and that religious leaders “draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me,” echoing Matthew 15:8–9. This language points beyond personal forgiveness toward a general apostasy and the need for divine restoration.

Scriptural Allusions and the Broader Apostasy Theme

The 1832 account also draws on scriptural language that Joseph later revisited during his translation of the Bible—particularly in JST Psalm 14. That psalm laments the loss of truth in the last days, declaring that “none doeth good” because religious teachers have gone astray. Scholars such as Joseph Fielding McConkie, Matthew Brown, Don Bradley, and Walker Wright have noted that Joseph’s JST rendering of Psalm 14 closely parallels themes in the First Vision and may even have influenced the language of his early history.

These parallels reinforce the idea that Joseph’s concern was not simply moral failure among individuals, but doctrinal corruption among religious teachers and institutions. Under this reading, the 1832 account implicitly addresses the same “which church is true?” question that later accounts state more explicitly.

The Later Accounts: Emphasis Without Contradiction

Joseph Smith’s later narrations of the First Vision vary in detail depending on audience and purpose. The 1835 account includes both concerns explicitly: uncertainty about which religious system was right and the declaration that his sins were forgiven. The 1838 account foregrounds religious confusion and the question of church authority but still alludes to “many other things” said during the vision that are not recorded—leaving room for experiences, such as forgiveness, described elsewhere.

Similarly, third-party retellings by Orson Pratt (1840) and Orson Hyde (1842) combine both themes: preparation for a future state, concern for salvation, confusion among denominations, and assurance of divine favor.

Rather than showing a shift in motivation, these accounts show selective emphasis, shaped by context and audience. None of them deny either concern; each highlights different aspects of the same religious struggle.

The claim that Joseph Smith changed his motivation for seeking revelation does not survive careful scrutiny. Across all accounts, Joseph presents himself as a young man profoundly concerned with salvation—how to prepare for eternity, how to worship God correctly, and how to receive forgiveness of sins. In his worldview, these were not separate questions but variations on the same theme. Differences among the First Vision accounts reflect changes in emphasis, audience, and narrative purpose—not contradiction. When read in context and within the religious culture of Joseph Smith’s time, the accounts form a coherent and internally consistent explanation of why he went to the grove to pray in 1820.

Rather than depicting an evolving fabrication, the evidence shows a stable core story: Joseph Smith sought divine guidance because he believed his soul—and the religious world around him—were in need of correction that only God could provide.

Knowing if God Existed

A frequently repeated claim in critical discussions of early Latter-day Saint history is that Oliver Cowdery taught that Joseph Smith did not even know whether a “Supreme Being” existed prior to 1823, thereby implying ignorance of God before the visit of the angel Moroni. This claim is based on a selective and decontextualized reading of Oliver Cowdery’s Church history, published in installments in the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate beginning in late 1834. When read carefully and in full historical context, Oliver’s account does not deny Joseph Smith’s First Vision, nor does it suggest that Joseph was an atheist prior to Moroni’s visit. Instead, it reflects a complex narrative strategy, one that presupposes Joseph’s earlier divine encounter while choosing not to narrate it directly.

Oliver Cowdery’s 1834–1835 History

In December 1834, Oliver Cowdery began publishing a formal history of the Church in the Messenger and Advocate. In the first installment, Oliver accurately placed Joseph Smith at fourteen years of age during a period of intense religious excitement and revivalism. He described the surrounding sectarian contention and Joseph’s deep concern for his soul—an account that clearly parallels Joseph Smith’s own descriptions of the circumstances leading to the First Vision.

This initial installment builds narrative momentum toward a revelatory experience. Readers naturally expect the culminating event to be Joseph’s First Vision. However, in the second installment, published in February 1835, Oliver takes an unexpected turn.

The Apparent Discontinuity in the Second Installment

In the February 1835 installment, Oliver abruptly “corrects” Joseph’s age from fourteen to seventeen and proceeds to describe the visit of the angel Moroni rather than the First Vision. He does not narrate the vision of the Father and the Son explicitly, creating the impression—at least for modern readers unfamiliar with the broader documentary record—that Oliver either did not know of the First Vision or believed the Moroni visitation to be Joseph’s earliest divine encounter.

This narrative move has led some critics to argue that the First Vision was a later invention and that Joseph initially believed Moroni’s appearance was his first theophany. However, this interpretation collapses under close examination of both Oliver’s own language and the documentary evidence available at the time he was writing.

Evidence That Oliver Knew of the First Vision

By 1834, Joseph Smith had already recorded an account of his First Vision in his 1832 history, in which he explicitly stated that he “saw the Lord.” There is substantial evidence that Oliver Cowdery had access to this document while preparing his history. Not only was Oliver serving as Church historian at the time, but there are also striking verbal and thematic correlations between Joseph’s 1832 account, Oliver’s 1834–1835 history, and Joseph’s 1835 journal entry describing the same events.

Rather than being ignorant of the First Vision, Oliver appears to have assumed its reality and authority—so much so that he felt no need to retell it in detail. Instead, he refers to it obliquely before continuing his narrative with Moroni’s visit.

“If a Supreme Being Did Exist”: What Oliver Actually Meant

The most frequently misunderstood statement in Oliver’s February 1835 installment occurs when he minimizes the earlier religious excitement and writes that Joseph sought:

a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him.

This sentence is often cited as evidence that Joseph doubted the existence of God prior to 1823. However, the grammatical structure and narrative framing show that Oliver is referring retrospectively to Joseph’s earlier state of concern, not his condition at age seventeen. The “religious excitement” is explicitly described as a past experience, tied to Joseph’s youth and spiritual anxiety, not as his settled worldview.

Immediately following this statement, Oliver affirms that Joseph’s seeking had already been answered. He writes:

This, most assuredly, was correct—it was right. The Lord has said, long since… that for him who knocks it shall be opened.

The phrase “long since” signals that the divine response occurred prior to the events Oliver is about to describe—namely, the visit of Moroni. In other words, Oliver is assuring readers that Joseph’s earlier plea for divine confirmation had already been answered, even though Oliver does not recount the vision explicitly.

An Intentional Narrative Shift, Not a Denial

Oliver Cowdery’s decision to move directly to Moroni’s visit after alluding to Joseph’s earlier divine encounter appears to be a stylistic and narrative choice, not a theological one. The second installment functions as a transition from Joseph’s preparatory spiritual experiences to the beginning of his prophetic commission tied to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Far from denying the First Vision, Oliver signals its reality while choosing to focus on subsequent events. His language affirms that something decisive and correct had already taken place in Joseph’s life—a divine response consistent with Joseph Smith’s own accounts.

Oliver Cowdery did not claim that Joseph Smith lacked belief in a Supreme Being until 1823, nor did he deny or replace the First Vision with Moroni’s appearance. When read carefully, Oliver’s history presupposes Joseph’s earlier encounter with God and reflects familiarity with Joseph’s 1832 account. The much-discussed phrase “if a Supreme being did exist” describes Joseph’s earlier religious questioning, not his final understanding.

Rather than undermining Joseph Smith’s First Vision, Oliver Cowdery’s history quietly affirms it—demonstrating that by the mid-1830s, the experience was known, authoritative, and foundational, even when not retold in full detail.

Were All the Churches False or Not?

One of the most persistent criticisms of Joseph Smith’s First Vision accounts is the claim that he had already concluded—before going to the grove to pray—that all churches were false. According to this argument, statements in Joseph’s earliest account (1832) indicate that he had already determined that “there was no society or denomination” built upon the New Testament. This, critics argue, contradicts later accounts in which Joseph expresses uncertainty about which church was true and even surprise upon being told by God to join none of them.

A careful examination of the historical record shows that this criticism rests on a false dilemma. Joseph Smith did not enter the grove having definitively decided that all churches everywhere were false. Rather, the evidence consistently portrays a young seeker who had become deeply disillusioned with the denominations known to him, yet remained uncertain about his duty and still hoped that God would identify the true path.

The Claim of Contradiction

Critics typically point to an apparent tension between two sets of statements:

• 1832 account: Joseph states that through scripture study he learned that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.”
• 1835 and 1838 accounts: Joseph repeatedly says that he “knew not who was right or who was wrong” and that his object in praying was to know “which of all the sects was right.”

From this contrast, critics argue that Joseph had already concluded that all churches were false in 1832 but later revised his story to portray himself as uncertain in order to heighten the drama or doctrinal implications of the First Vision.

This conclusion, however, misunderstands both the scope of Joseph’s early conclusions and the language he used to describe them.

What Joseph Smith Actually Concluded Before Praying

The 1832 account explains how Joseph reached his preliminary conclusions. From roughly age twelve onward, he studied the Bible and compared it to what he observed among the Christian denominations in his area. His conclusions were based on his “intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations,” not on abstract knowledge of Christianity worldwide.

When Joseph wrote that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ,” the context suggests a judgment about the denominations with which he was familiar, not a settled conclusion about every church on earth. This reading is reinforced by contemporaneous evidence. An 1832 newspaper report stated that Joseph “had not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them, and being in doubt what his duty was, he had recourse to prayer.”

In other words, Joseph’s scripture study had led him to doubt the adequacy of the denominations he knew—but not to certainty about what he should do instead. His conclusions intensified his confusion rather than resolved it.

Doubt and Uncertainty in the Later Accounts

This same uncertainty appears consistently in Joseph’s later accounts. In his 1835 diary entry, he wrote that he “knew not who was right or who was wrong” and felt it was “of the first importance” to determine the truth because of the eternal consequences involved. In the 1838 account, he explained that he was too young and inexperienced “to come to any certain conclusion who was right, and who was wrong,” despite his growing concerns about religious corruption.

This is not a retreat from an earlier certainty but an acknowledgment that Joseph’s personal conclusions were insufficient. The fact that he had already identified serious doctrinal problems did not give him confidence to act decisively. Instead, it convinced him that only divine revelation could settle the matter.

“Never Entered Into My Heart”: A Question of Meaning

One frequently cited objection focuses on Joseph Smith–History 1:18–19, where Joseph says that it “had never entered into my heart” that all churches were wrong, even though earlier he had asked whether “they were all wrong together.” At face value, this appears contradictory.

However, the phrase “entered into my heart” carries a specific meaning in Joseph’s religious vocabulary. Joseph used similar language elsewhere to describe moments of spiritual certainty rather than mere intellectual consideration. Something could pass through the mind without being fully accepted or internalized at the level of conviction.

Thus, Joseph could consider the possibility that the local denominations were all in error without emotionally or spiritually accepting the idea that no true church existed anywhere. Indeed, a draft history recorded by scribe Howard Coray clarifies this point by stating that Joseph “supposed that one of them were so”—that is, he still believed that at least one sect might be right, even if he had doubts.

The Scope of Joseph’s Question: Local or Universal?

Another key insight comes from reading Joseph Smith–History 1:10–18 as a continuous thought rather than isolated verses. In the passages immediately preceding Joseph’s famous question, he specifically names the Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists as the denominations contending around him. His question—“Who of all these parties are right?”—naturally refers back to those groups.

Read this way, Joseph was asking whether the prominent denominations in his area were correct—or whether they were all mistaken—not whether Christianity itself had entirely vanished from the earth. If so, the later instruction to “join none of them” because all were wrong—apparently without geographical or denominational limitation—could well have been surprising and spiritually jarring.

Orson Pratt and the Broader Religious World

Orson Pratt’s 1840 account further undermines the idea that Joseph had already settled the question. Pratt reports that Joseph reflected on the existence of “many hundreds of different denominations” worldwide and wondered whether any of them constituted the Church of Christ. This expansive view makes little sense if Joseph had already concluded that all churches everywhere were false. Instead, it portrays a young man hoping—however uncertainly—that somewhere among the many sects was the truth.

The historical evidence does not support the claim that Joseph Smith definitively concluded before the First Vision that all churches were false. Rather, it shows that he became increasingly aware of doctrinal corruption and religious division among the denominations he knew, which deepened his uncertainty and led him to seek divine guidance.

Joseph’s scripture study created a crisis, not a resolution. He doubted the churches around him, questioned the integrity of their teachings, and mourned the spiritual condition of the world—but he did not claim the authority or certainty to declare universal apostasy on his own. That determination, according to all accounts, came only through revelation.

Thus, far from undermining the First Vision narratives, the apparent tension between the accounts reflects a realistic process of religious searching: growing doubt, unresolved questions, and the decision to seek answers from God rather than from human judgment alone.

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

Response to claim: 30 - the “earliest publication to print a ‘full history’ of the rise of Mormonism, the ‘’Messenger and Advocate’’, failed to mention Smith’s vision in 1820

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that the “earliest publication to print a ‘full history’ of the rise of Mormonism, the ‘’Messenger and Advocate’’, failed to mention Smith’s vision in 1820, starting instead with the angel appearing in Smith’s bedroom in 1823.”

Author's sources: Tanner, ‘’Mormonism-Shadow or Reality?’’ 151-52.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

This refers to Oliver Cowdery’s history published in the ‘’Messenger and Advocate” in 1834 and 1835. Oliver begins describing the religious excitement leading up to the First Vision when Joseph was 14 years old. Eight weeks later in the next installment, Oliver states that he made a mistake, changes Joseph’s age to 17, then describes Moroni’s visit without mentioning the First Vision.

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "The Cowdery Conundrum: Oliver’s Aborted Attempt to Describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision in 1834 and 1835"

Roger Nicholson,  Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (December 6, 2013)

In 1834, Oliver Cowdery began publishing a history of the Church in installments in the pages of the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate. The first installment talks of the religious excitement and events that ultimately led to Joseph Smith’s First Vision at age 14. However, in the subsequent installment published two months later, Oliver claims that he made a mistake, correcting Joseph’s age from 14 to 17 and failing to make any direct mention of the First Vision. Oliver instead tells the story of Moroni’s visit, thus making it appear that the religious excitement led to Moroni’s visit.

This curious account has been misunderstood by some to be evidence that the “first” vision that Joseph claimed was actually that of the angel Moroni and that Joseph invented the story of the First Vision of the Father and Son at a later time. However, Joseph wrote an account of his First Vision in 1832 in which he stated that he saw the Lord, and there is substantial evidence that Oliver had this document in his possession at the time that he wrote his history of the Church. This essay demonstrates the correlations between Joseph Smith’s 1832 First Vision account, Oliver’s 1834/1835 account, and Joseph’s 1835 journal entry on the same subject. It is clear that not only did Oliver have Joseph’s history in his possession but that he used Joseph’s 1832 account as a basis for his own account. This essay also shows that Oliver knew of the First Vision and attempted to obliquely refer to the event several times in his second installment before continuing with his narrative of Moroni’s visit.

Click here to view the complete article

Response to claim: 31 - Joseph Smith “engaged in folk magic and was occasionally hired to use his magical stone"

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that Joseph Smith “engaged in folk magic and was occasionally hired to use his magical stone-found in a neighbor’s (Mr. Chase) well-to find buried treasures and lost objects. Since the Lord had so specifically instructed the nation of Israel not to engage in any magical practice, it is hard to believe that God would choose a magician to restore his church.

Author's sources: Leviticus 19:26; 20:6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:10; Isaiah 19:3.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Joseph Smith was not a “magician.”

< Back to FAIR Answers Index

<onlyinclude>

1. REDIRECTJoseph Smith and folk magic or the occult

Matthew B. Brown, "Revised or Unaltered? Joseph Smith’s Foundational Stories"

Matthew B. Brown,  Proceedings of the 2006 FAIR Conference, (August 2006)

Abner Cole wanted to mock the Book of Mormon in his newspaper (The Reflector). He was most probably motivated to do this because he had violated copyright law by printing portions of the Book of Mormon in his paper and the Prophet Joseph Smith forced him to stop his illegal activity. Cole’s mockery text was called the “Book of Pukei.” In this peculiar literary production the editor took many authentic elements of the story of the Book of Mormon’s origin and mixed them together with elements of speculation that had been floating around the community. Cole utilized the dialogue of one of the characters in his mockery text to call Joseph Smith an ignoramus, a criminal, and a servant of Satan. It is in this text that Joseph Smith is first connected with a man from Great Sodus Bay, New York, called “Walters the Magician” (probably Luman Walter).

Click here to view the complete article

Response to claim: 31 - The author notes that in 1826 Joseph was charged with being a “disorderly person” and “glass looker”

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author notes that in 1826 Joseph was charged with being a “disorderly person” and “glass looker.” The author states that “glass looker” means “crystal ball user.”

Author's sources: Tanner, ‘’Mormonism-Shadow or Reality?’’ 32-49.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

< Back to FAIR Answers Index

V

Articles about Joseph Smith

Life and Character	Status in Latter-day Saint belief Joseph's trustworthiness Money digging Folk magic or the occult The Word of Wisdom Alleged narcissism
Youth	Joseph Smith's family as trustworthy and hard-working Education Use of seer stones as a youth The Hurlbut affidavits Joseph Smith's 1826 trial
Revelations and the Church	Witness of Jesus Christ First Vision Book of Mormon Joseph Smith's inspired revision of the Bible (JST) The restoration of the priesthood Personages who appeared to Joseph Smith Production of the Book of Abraham Kinderhook Plates
Prophetic Statements	The U.S. Civil War Rocky Mountain prophecy The White Horse prophecy Alleged false prophecies of Joseph Smith Joseph Smith and Old Testament practices
Society	Legal issues 1826 trial Creation of the Kirtland Safety Society Failure of the Kirtland Safety Society Campaign for President of the United States
Plural marriage (polygamy)	Plural marriage or polygamy Polygamy navigator Plural wives of Joseph Smith
Death	The Nauvoo Expositor Events surrounding the death of Joseph Smith Firing a gun at Carthage Jail Qualification as a martyr 1844 Succession to Joseph Smith

Highlights in the Prophet’s Life 20 Mar. 1826: Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a “disorderly person,” South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York. New York law defined a disorderly person as, among other things, a vagrant or a seeker of “lost goods.” The Prophet had been accused of both: the first charge was false and was made simply to cause trouble; Joseph’s use of a seer stone to see things that others could not see with the naked eye brought the second charge. Those who brought the charges were apparently concerned that Joseph might bilk his employer, Josiah Stowell, out of some money. Mr. Stowell’s testimony clearly said this was not so and that he trusted Joseph Smith.

—Anonymous, "Highlights in the Prophet’s Life," Ensign (Jun 1994): 24. off-site

∗       ∗       ∗

What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?

Joseph Smith appeared at a pre-trial court hearing in 1826 for "glasslooking"

In 1825 Josiah Stowel sought out the young Joseph Smith, who had a reputation for being able to use his seer stone to locate lost objects, to help him to locate an ancient silver mine. After a few weeks of work, Joseph persuaded Stowel to give up the effort. In 1826, some of Stowel's relatives brought Joseph to court and accused him of "glasslooking" and being a "disorderly person." Several witnesses testified at the hearing.

Joseph was released without being fined or otherwise punished - there was no verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty" because this was only a hearing rather than a trial

Joseph was ultimately released without being fined and had no punishment imposed upon him. Years later, a bill from the judge was discovered which billed for court services.

Gordon Madsen summarized:

"The evidence thus far available about the 1826 trial before Justice Neely leads to the inescapable conclusion that Joseph Smith was acquitted."

A review of all the relevant documents demonstrates that:

1. The court hearing of 1826 was not a trial, it was an examination
2. The hearing was likely initiated from religious concerns; i.e. people objected to Joseph's religious claims.
3. There were seven witnesses.
4. The witnesses' testimonies have not all been transmitted faithfully.
5. Most witnesses testified that Joseph did possess a gift of sight

The court hearing was likely initiated by Stowel's relatives as a concern that he was having too much influence on Stowel

It was likely that the court hearing was initiated not so much from a concern about Joseph being a money digger, as concern that Joseph was having an influence on Josiah Stowel. Josiah Stowel was one of the first believers in Joseph Smith. His nephew was probably very concerned about that and was anxious to disrupt their relationship if possible. He did not succeed. The court hearing failed in its purpose, and was only resurrected decades later to accuse Joseph Smith of different crimes to a different people and culture.

Understanding the context of the case removes any threat it may have posed to Joseph's prophetic integrity.

What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge?

Josiah Stowell requested Joseph Smith's help in locating an ancient silver mine

In the spring of 1825 Josiah Stowell visited with Joseph Smith "on account of having heard that he possessed certain keys, by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye." Josiah Stowell wanted Joseph to help him in his quest to find treasure in an ancient silver mine. Joseph was reluctant, but Stowell persuaded Joseph to come by offering high wages. According to trial documents, Stowell says Joseph, using a seer stone, "Looked through stone and described Josiah Stowell's house and out houses, while at Palmyra at Sampson Stowell's correctly, that he had told about a painted tree with a man's hand painted upon it by means of said stone."

Joseph ultimately persuaded Stowell to give up looking for the mine

Joseph and his father traveled to southern New York in November of 1825. This was after the crops were harvested and Joseph had finished his visit to the Hill Cumorah that year. They participated with Stowell and the company of workers in digging for the mine for less than a month. Finally Joseph persuaded him to stop. "After laboring for the old gentleman about a month, without success, Joseph prevailed upon him to cease his operations."

Joseph continued to work in the area for Stowell and others. He boarded at the home of Isaac Hale and met Emma Hale, who was one "treasure" he got out of the enterprise.

The following year, Stowell's sons or nephew (depending on which account you follow) brought charges against Joseph and he was taken before Justice Neely

In March of the next year, Stowell's sons or nephew (depending on which account you follow) brought charges against Joseph and he was taken before Justice Neely. The supposed trial record came from Miss Pearsall. "The record of the examination was torn from Neely's docket book by his niece, Emily Persall, and taken to Utah when she went to serve as a missionary under Episcopalian bishop Daniel S. Tuttle." This will be identified as the Pearsall account although Neely possessed it after her death. It is interesting that the first published version of this record didn't appear until after Miss Pearsall had died.

Stowell's relatives felt that Joseph was exercising "unlimited control" over their father or uncle

William D. Purple took notes at the trial and tells us, "In February, 1826, the sons of Mr. Stowell, ...were greatly incensed against Smith, ...saw that the youthful seer had unlimited control over the illusions of their sire... They caused the arrest of Smith as a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood."

Whereas the Pearsall account says: "Warrant issued upon oath of Peter G. Bridgman, [Josiah Stowell's nephew] who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter...brought before court March 20, 1826"

So, we have what has been called "The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith", even though the records show that this wasn't actually a trial. For many years LDS scholars Francis Kirkham, Hugh Nibley and others expressed serious doubts that such a trial had even taken place.

Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything?

Joseph was never fined - the bills from Judge Neely and Constable DeZeng were for court costs

The court did not assess a fine against Joseph. There were bills made out by Judge Neely and Constable DeZeng, but these were for costs. Those bills were directed to the County for payment of witnesses, etc., not to Joseph.

Ensign (June 1994): "Highlights in the Prophet’s Life 20 Mar. 1826: Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a "disorderly person," South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York

Ensign (June 1994):

Highlights in the Prophet’s Life 20 Mar. 1826: Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a "disorderly person," South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York. New York law defined a disorderly person as, among other things, a vagrant or a seeker of "lost goods." The Prophet had been accused of both: the first charge was false and was made simply to cause trouble; Joseph’s use of a seer stone to see things that others could not see with the naked eye brought the second charge. Those who brought the charges were apparently concerned that Joseph might bilk his employer, Josiah Stowell, out of some money. Mr. Stowell’s testimony clearly said this was not so and that he trusted Joseph Smith.

Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that a record of this trial would be "the most damning evidence in existence" against Joseph Smith?

Nibley felt that the "court record" didn't seem to be correct

Hugh Nibley had serious doubts as to whether or not Joseph Smith was actually brought to trial in 1826, and he felt that the only real trial was in 1830. For the most part, Nibley felt that the "court record" didn't seem to be correct. The following quote is taken from Nibley's book "The Myth Makers:"

"if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith."

Why are the 1971 discoveries important?

It was easy to cast doubt on the reality of the 1826 hearing until the bills from Judge Albert Neely and Constable Philip De Zeng were found in 1971. These documents were removed from their purported site of discovery by Dr. Wesley Walters, a well-known anti-Mormon author.

Walters wrote, "Because the two 1826 bills had not only suffered from dampness, but had severe water damage as well, Mr. Poffarl hand-carried the documents to the Yale University's Beinecke Library, which has one of the best document preservation centers in the country." The problem with this action is, once you have removed a document from a historical setting and then try to restore it to the same setting, you can't prove that you have not altered the document.

The actions of Walters and Poffarl compromised the documents. By having the documents removed and only returned under threat of a lawsuit by the County, it opened the possibility that they could be forged documents. They are generally considered to be authentic.

Nibley's real point at issue is not whether or not there was a trial, but whether or not a record existed proving Joseph guilty of deceit

Since Wesley Walters has found some bills related to the trial, the critics now claim that the case is proven and that Nibley has proven their case for them. Nothing is further from the truth. First of all you need to look at the whole quote. Nibley was chastising Tuttle for not actually using the trial record that he had. He was questioning why he would do that if it was so important.

"You knew its immense value as a weapon against Joseph Smith if its authenticity could be established. And the only way to establish authenticity was to get hold of the record book from which the pages had been purportedly torn. After all, you had only Miss Pearsall's word for it that the book ever existed. Why didn't you immediately send he back to find the book or make every effort to get hold of I? Why didn't you "unearth" it, as they later said you did? . . . The authenticity of the record still rests entirely on the confidential testimony of Miss Pearsall to the Bishop. And who was Miss Pearsall? A zealous old maid, apparently: "a woman helper in our mission," who lived right in the Tuttle home and would do anything to assist her superior. The picture I get is that of a gossipy old housekeeper. If this court record is authentic, it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith. Why, then, [speaking to Tuttle] was it not republished in your article in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge after 1891? . . . in 1906 Bishop Tuttle published his Reminiscences of a Missionary Bishop in which he blasts the Mormons as hotly as ever. . . yet in the final summary of his life's experiences he never mentions the story of the court record - his one claim to immortal fame and the gratitude of the human race if it were true!" (Nibley "The Myth Makers", 246)

The Pearsall account, which has never been produced, claims that the defendant was found guilty. The real point at issue is not whether or not there was a trial, but whether or not a record existed proving Joseph guilty of deceit. A document proving such guilt has not been found.

What did critics of the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime think of the 1826 court hearing?

Critics of Joseph Smith's time ignored the 1826 court hearing

Critics of Joseph Smith's time ignored the 1826 court hearing:

1. They didn't bring it up in another trial in the same area in 1830.
2. It was not mentioned in any of the affidavits collected by Hurlbut in 1833, even though he was diligently looking for every piece of dirt he could find.
3. Although the trial was briefly mentioned in 1831, it was not mentioned again in a published record for 46 years.

The attraction of this event for a later generation of critics, however, lies in the fact that:

• Society had changed
• Seer Stones were no longer acceptable
• Treasure digging was considered abnormal
• Spiritual gifts were reinterpreted as manifestations of the occult

Many people of the 1800s did not see any differences between what later generations would label as "magic" and religiously-driven activities recorded in the Bible

Many people of the 1800s did not see any differences between what later generations would label as "magic" and religiously-driven activities recorded in the Bible—such as Joseph's silver cup (see Genesis 44:2,5) in which 'he divineth' (which was also practiced by the surrounding pagans and referred to as hydromancy), or the rod of Aaron and its divinely-driven power (Exodus 7:9-12).

The Bible records that Jacob used rods to cause Laban's cattle to produce spotted, and speckled offspring (see Genesis 30:37-39) — one can only imagine what the critics would say should Joseph Smith have attempted such a thing!

In Joseph Smith's own day other Christian leaders were involved in practices which today's critics would call 'occultic'

In Joseph Smith's own day other Christian leaders were involved in practices which today's critics would call 'occultic.' Quinn, for instance, observes that in "1825, a Massachusetts magazine noted with approval that a local clergyman used a forked divining rod.... Similarly, a Methodist minister wrote twenty-three years later that a fellow clergymen in New Jersey had used a divining rod up to the 1830s to locate buried treasure and the 'spirits [that] keep guard over buried coin'...."

Activities of the early 1800s or Biblical times which later generations would view skeptically were simply thought of as part of how the world worked

It is important to realize that every statement about "magic" or the "occult" by LDS authors is a negative one. Joseph and his contemporaries would likely have shocked and dismayed to be charged with practicing "magic." For them, such beliefs were simply how the world worked. Someone might make use of a compass without understanding the principles of magnetism. This mysterious, but apparently effective, device was useful even if its underlying mechanism was not understood. In a similar way, activities of the early 1800s or Biblical times which later generations would view skeptically were simply thought of as part of how the world worked.

But, it is a huge leap from this realization to charging that Joseph and his followers believed they were drawing power from anything but a divine or proper source.

What are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"?

What records of the court hearing exist?

We have five records of the 1826 hearing. These were published in eight documents.

1. Apr. 9, 1831 - A W. Benton in Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate
2.Oct. 1835 - Oliver Cowdery in Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate
3.1842 letter from Joel K. Noble (not published until 1977)
4.Record torn from Judge Neely docket book by Miss Emily Pearsall (niece)

• Feb. 1873 - Charles Marshall publishes in Frazer's Magazine (London)
• Apr. 1873 - Frazer's article reprinted in Eclectic Magazine (N.Y.)
• 1883 - Tuttle article in New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge
• Jan. 1886 - Christian Advocate vol. 2, no. 13 (Salt Lake City, UT)

5. May 3, 1877 - W. D. Purple Chenango Union

It may be that Purple saw the publication in the Eclectic Magazine and that is why he published his account a few years later. There are no complete overlaps in the accounts; we will look at the similarities and differences.

Finally, we have the bills by Judge Neely and Constable Da Zeng which provide some additional useful details.

Document provenance

We don't have the actual record that Miss Pearsall had, but the claimed trail of events leads as follows:

1. Miss Pearsall tears the record from the docket book of her uncle Judge Neely
2. She takes the record with her to Utah when she went to work with Bishop Tuttle.
3. Miss Pearsall dies in 1872.
4. Charles Marshall copies the record and has it published in Frazer's Magazine in 1873.
5. Ownership falls to Tuttle after Miss Pearsall's death
6. Tuttle published in 1883 Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia.
7. Tuttle gave it to the Methodists who published it in 1886
8. Then the record was lost.

It will be noticed with interest, that although Bishop Tuttle and others had access to the Pearsall account for several years it was not published until after her death. That combined with the fact that the torn leaves were never allowed to be examined, would cast some doubt on the completeness or accuracy of that which was published.

Do we have a court record?

We know that the supposed "court record" obtained by Miss Pearsall can't be a court record at all.

1. Misdemeanor trials were not recorded, only felony trials.
2. No witness signatures—they were required in an official record.
3. It appears to be a pretrial hearing.
4. Pretrial hearings cannot deliver guilty verdicts.

Why were the various records made?

This is the reason that the people stated for why they were putting forth this information.

1. Benton: more complete history of their founder
2. Cowdery: private character of our brother
3. Noble: explain the character of the Mormons
4. Marshal: preserve a piece of information about the prophet
5. Purple: as a precursor of the advent of the wonder of the age, Mormonism
6. Tuttle: [to show] In what light he appeared to others
7. Judge Neely: to collect fees

Unsurprisingly, those who provided these accounts had an agenda. We are not looking at an event through the eyes of an unbiased observer, and most of that bias is directed against Joseph Smith.

Who brought the charges?

If we look at the individuals bringing the charges, we have the following: Benton (1831): The Public Cowdery (1835): very officious person Noble (1842): Civil authority Marshall (1873): Peter G. Bridgman Purple (1877): sons of Mr. Stowell Tuttle (1883): Peter G. Bridgman Judge Neely: The Public

Note that the agreement of Marshall and Tuttle is misleading because they are essentially quoting the same source.

Whether it was Josiah Stowell's sons or his nephew Peter G. Bridgman, it seems to be close family members. We don't know why Peter G. Bridgman brought the charges, but it could easily have been because he was worried that his uncle was accepting Joseph Smith in his religious claims. Josiah did join the church organized by Joseph Smith and stayed faithful his whole life. As for Peter Bridgman, "Within a month after the trial he was licensed as an exhorter by the Methodists and within three years had helped establish the West Bainbridge Methodist Church. Upon his death in 1872 his fellow ministers characterized him as 'an ardent Methodist and any attack upon either the doctrines or the polity of the Methodist Episcopal Church, within his field of labor, was sure to be repelled by him with a vigorous hand."

Is it possible that the trial of Joseph Smith was just one of his first attempts to apply a "vigorous hand?"

What was the charge against Joseph Smith?

The charge is listed in the various accounts as:

1. Benton (1831): a disorderly person
2. Cowdery (1835): a disorderly person
3. Noble (1842): under the Vagrant act
4. Marshall (1873): a disorderly person and an imposter
5. Purple (1877): a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood
6. Tuttle (1882): a disorderly person and an imposter
7. Judge Neely: a misdemeanor

Hugh Nibley indicated how it would be strange that he could be charged without visible means of livelihood, since he was being employed by Stowell and others.

The portion of the statute that would seem to apply was enacted by New York in 1813.

...all persons who not having wherewith to maintain themselves, live idle without employment, and also all persons who go about from door to door, or place themselves in the streets, highways or passages, to beg in the cities or towns where they respectively dwell, and all jugglers, and all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretending to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found; ... shall be deemed and adjudged disorderly persons.

What is a juggler? It used to be that a person skilled in sleight of hand was called a juggler, whereas today we would call them a "sleight of hand magician." Thus, a "juggler" was a con man; someone using his 'stage magic' talents to defraud.

But what if you weren't pretending to discover lost goods? What if you actually had a gift where you "could discern things invisible to the natural eye" Could you then be judged guilty of this statute?

How many witnesses testified?

As far as the number of witnesses we have the following:

1. Benton (1831): not mentioned
2. Cowdery (1835): not mentioned
3. Marshall (1873): Five quoted, charges for seven witnesses
4. Tuttle (1882): Six
5. Purple (1877): Four
6. Constable Philip De Zeng: Twelve

What is particularly interesting here is that Tuttle and Marshall are supposedly quoting from the same document. Marshall only quotes 5 witnesses, but at the end, the charges are listed for seven witnesses. The fee was 12-1/2 cents per witness. Eighty-seven and ½ cents divided by twelve ½ cents per witness, gives us seven witnesses. By combining the Purple and Pearsall accounts we can arrive at seven witnesses, and also a motive for not including all the witnesses or letting the record be examined. It is unknown why the constable would have listed twelve witnesses, unless that is the number he summoned to the proceedings. Seven would seem to be the correct number of those that testified.

What witness is excluded from some accounts?

Purple does add a witness that hadn't been included by Marshall or Tuttle: Joseph Smith, Sr. Maybe they didn't want to include the testimony of Joseph's father because his testimony was more religious in nature. He spoke of Joseph's "wonderful triumphs as a seer", that "both he and his son were mortified that this wonderful power which God had so miraculously given him should be used only in search of filthy lucre," and "he trusted that the Son of Righteousness would some day illumine the heart of the boy, and enable him to see His will concerning him." It is easy to see why this testimony wouldn't be included in a record where you are trying to show that Joseph Smith was a person trying to acquire work as a money digger. Which might be the reason the Tuttle and Marshall omitted the Joseph Smith Sr. testimony.

What verdict was brought against Joseph?

1. Benton: tried and condemned ... designedly allowed to escape
2. Cowdery: honorably acquitted
3. Noble: was condemned, took leg bail
4. Marshall: guilty?
5. Tuttle: guilty?
6. Purple: discharged
7. Constable De Zeng: not a trial

Noble's statement is hearsay, since there is no evidence that he actually attended this trial. Furthermore, his statement and Benton's statement can't be taken as an indication that Joseph was judged guilty. For example, in Joseph's 1830 trial he was acquitted. The court said that they "find nothing to condemn you, and therefore you are discharged." Then Mr Reid testifies, "They then proceeded to reprimand him severely, not because anything derogatory to his character in any shape had been proven against him by the host of witnesses that had testified during the trial."

The verdict indicated by Marshall and Tuttle is questionable. It seems to be appended as an afterthought. Throughout the document Joseph is referred to as the "prisoner", then after the last testimony, we have one sentence in which he is named a defendant, "And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty." Here we have suddenly a declaratory statement that is completely out of character with the rest of the Pearsall document. Also, if this were actually a trial, Joseph wouldn't have testified against himself as the first witness.

The examination was not a trial

Wesley P. Walters has demonstrated that this is not a trial. The Constable's charges of "19 cents attached to the mittimus marks it as the pre-trial 'commitment for want of bail' ...and not the post-trial 'warrant of commitment, on conviction, twenty-five cents."

In the Tanners' anti-Mormon Salt Lake City Messenger, they stated, "Wesley P. Walters had convincingly demonstrated to us that we were dealing with 'an examination.' In a New Conductor Generalis, 1819, page 142, we learn that in an 'examination' the accused is not put under oath but that the witnesses are'"

In all cases but one the witnesses were "sworn", whereas Joseph was examined. Judge Neeley's charges actually uses that precise terminology, "in examination of above cause". Therefore, since this wasn't a trial, one cannot have a guilty verdict.

Summary of testimony

• Joseph Smith, Jr.: In the Purple account he tells about finding his stone and he exhibits his stone. In the Pearsall record it talks about how Stowell came and got Joseph, "had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school;" He informed Stowell where to find treasures, and buried coins and that he did it for the previous three years. But Joseph did not solicit and declined having anything to do with the business.

• Joseph Smith Sr.: This testimony is only in the Purple account. We discussed earlier how he felt this power showed that Joseph was a seer and that Joseph Sr. was mortified by the use of the sacred power and that he hoped that eventually it would get used correctly. Since this testimony puts Joseph in a positive light it is understandable why it wasn't included in the published versions of the Pearsall account.

• Josiah Stowell: His employer's testimony in the Purple account has Josiah say that Joseph could see 50 feet below the surface, described many circumstances to confirm his words. He said, "do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

We go to the Pearsall record, for a slightly different account of the Josiah Stowell testimony. It tells how Joseph "looked through stone, and described Josiah Stowel's house and out-houses while at Palmyra, at Simpson Stowel's, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree with a man's hand painted upon it, by means of said stone;" Josiah tells about Joseph's being employed part time. It also contains the part that "he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and professed the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone." He talked about finding something for Deacon Attelon that looked like gold ore. Josiah talked about Mr. Bacon burying some money and that Joseph described how there was a feather buried with the money. They found the feather but the money was gone. Josiah said that he "had been in company with prisoner digging for gold, and had the most implicit faith in prisoner's skill."

Stowell joined the Church in 1830, and died in full fellowship, planning to join the Saints "in Zion."

• Horace Stowell: This testimony is only found in the Neely record. It is a short testimony that describes where a chest of dollars was buried in Winchester County and that Joseph marked the size of the chest with leaves on the ground.

• Arad Stowell: This witness went to see Joseph and wanted Joseph to display his skill. He laid out a book on a cloth. While holding a white stone to a candle, he read the book. Arad said that he was disappointed and went away because to him it was obviously a deception, but he doesn't tell us why he thought it was a deception. It would have been nice if he had told us why he thought that. Was it just that he had his mind made up before he went to see Joseph?

There are only three testimonies that are duplicated in both the Purple and Pearsall accounts. They are Joseph Smith, Josiah Stowel and Jonathan Thompson. In the Purple account Thompson said that he could not remember finding anything of value. He stated that Joseph claimed there was a treasure protected by sacrifice and that they had to be armed by fasting and prayer. They struck the treasure with a shovel. One man placed his hand on the treasure, but it gradually sunk out of reach. Joseph believed there was a lack of faith or devotion that caused the failure. They talked about getting the blood from a lamb and sprinkling it around.

Interestingly, the same witness in the Pearsall record says that Joseph indicated where the treasure was. He looked in the hat and told them how it was situated. An Indian had been killed and buried with the treasure. So this detail matches with the Purple account. The treasure kept settling away. Then Joseph talked about salt that could be found in Bainbridge and described money that Thompson had lost 16 years ago. Joseph described the man that had taken it and what happened to the money. There is nothing mentioned about sacrificing sheep or not having sufficient faith and so forth. The Pearsall record is supposedly a more complete written record, but it doesn't have the bleeding sheep, or fasting and prayer that characterizes the Purple account.

What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing?

Stowell joined the Church and died in full fellowship

One biographical encyclopedia noted:

Josiah Stowell (sometimes spelled Stoal) was born in Winchester, New Hampshire, 22 March 1770, and later resided at his farm on the Susquehanna River, about 3.2 miles southwest of the village of South Bainbridge (now Afton). This village was part of the township of Bainbridge (now Afton), Chenango County, New York. In October 1825 Stowell was engaged in digging for reported Spanish treasure in the Ouaquaga (Ouaquagua) Mountains of Harmony, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. Hearing that Joseph Smith Jr. of Manchester, Ontario County, New York, had the ability to "discern things invisible to the natural eye," Mr. Stowell visited Joseph and employed him.

The men lodged at the home of Isaac Hale in Harmony. According to Hale, they dug from early November to about 17 November 1825, when successive failures caused them to withdraw to the Stowell farm. While at the Hale home, Joseph Smith had met Isaac's daughter, Emma. He continued to court her while he was employed in New York by Josiah Stowell and Joseph Knight Sr. After Joseph and Emma were married at South Bainbridge on 18 January 1827, Stowell gave the newlyweds a ride to Manchester, where they resided with Joseph's parents.

Stowell and Knight were both houseguests of the Smiths at Manchester on 21-22 September 1827, when Joseph Smith went to the Hill Cumorah and obtained the gold plates from Moroni. Stowell joined the Church in 1830 but did not go west with the Saints when they moved to Ohio in 1831. Josiah Stowell continued to express his belief in the Prophet and the Book of Mormon as indicated in a letter written by his son, Josiah Stowell Jr., to John S. Fullmer in February 1843. He also dictated a letter to the Prophet in Nauvoo on 19 December 1843 and told him of his desire "to come to Zion the next season"; however, conditions prevented his doing so. Josiah Stowell died in Smithboro, Tioga County, New York, on May 12, 1844. He is buried in the Smithboro Cemetery.

Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?

Claims about Joseph being found guilty of being a "con man" in court usually revolve around either a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Joseph's 1826 court hearing

Claims that Joseph was a "juggler," or "conjurer" were a common 19th century method of dismissing his prophetic claims via ad hominem. Modern-day claims about him being found to be a "con man" are simply the same attack with updated language, usually bolstered by a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Joseph's 1826 court hearing.

Joseph's tendency to assume the best of others, even to his own repeated detriment, also argues for his sincerity. One might legitimately claim that Joseph was mistaken about his prophetic claims, but it will not do to claim that he was cynically, knowingly deceiving others for his own gain.

Claims about Joseph being found guilty of being a "con man" in court usually revolve around either a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Joseph's 1826 court hearing:

Main article:

1826 trial for "glasslooking"

Even if one rejects Joseph's claims to divine revelation or special abilities, his conduct still does not match that of a "con man"

• Con men seek out their marks; Joseph was approached for his help by those who had heard about him
• Con men travel from place to place, staying one step ahead of the law while defrauding their marks; Joseph was known locally and remained in his local area

Brant Gardner noted:

One very subtle but very important aspect of all of the dealings of the village seers is their relationship with their clients. The true cunning men and wise women were fixtures in the community. They received clients; they did not seek them out. In the cases reported about Sally Chase, her clients came to her. We have four descriptions of Joseph as this kind of village seer; and in each case, the client came to him with his problem....[T]hose who were searching for treasure invited the adept, but the cunning man or wise woman did not actively seek their employ.

Broader character traits that argue against the "con-man hypothesis"

When Joseph's career is examined more broadly, there are other factors which argue for his sincerity. Arguably one character trait which gave Joseph repeated trouble was his willingness to trust others and give them the benefit of the doubt. His striking ability to accept people at face value, never doubting that their motives were as pure as his own, has many exemplars. The case of W.W. Phelps is one.

Phelps had betrayed Joseph and the Church during the Missouri persecutions, and contributed to Joseph's confinement in Liberty Jail. His signature was on the petition that resulted in the extermination order which led to the Saints' murder and dispossession. After receiving a penitent letter from Phelps, Joseph quickly responded

I must say that it is with no ordinary feelings I endeavor to write a few lines to you… I am rejoiced at the privilege granted me… when we read your letter—truly our hearts were melted into tenderness and compassion when we ascertained your resolves… It is true, that we have suffered much in consequence of your behavior… we say it is your privilege to be delivered from the powers of the adversary, be brought into the liberty of God's dear children, and again take your stand among the Saints of the Most High, and by diligence, humility, and love unfeigned, commend yourself to our God, and your God, and to the Church of Jesus Christ…

Believing your confession to be real, and your repentance genuine, I shall be happy once again to give you the right hand of fellowship, and rejoice over the returning prodigal…

"Come on, dear brother, since the war is past, For friends at first, are friends again at last."

So it was that Joseph, while willing to do almost anything―from taking up arms, to petitioning presidents, to launching a campaign of disinformation―to protect the revealed Restoration and the Latter-day Saints, repeatedly opened himself to abuse and worse because of his apparent inability or unwillingness to think the worst of someone in advance of the evidence. Joseph assumed that all men were as purely motivated as he was. "It takes a con to know a con," and Joseph wasn’t a con. If he had been cynically exploiting others, he would have tended to ascribe his own base motives of deception and taking advantage to others, and probably would have been more cautious. But, he did not. Elder B.H. Roberts, a seventy and historian, noted years later that:

[Joseph Smith had] a too implicit trust in [men's] protestations of repentance when overtaken in their sins; a too great tenacity in friendship for men he had once taken into his confidence after they had been proven unworthy of the friendship.…

A prime example of this phenomenon is the case of John C. Bennett. Soon after Bennett's baptism in Nauvoo, Joseph received a letter reporting Bennett's abandonment of wife and children. Joseph knew from personal experience that "it is no uncommon thing for good men to be evil spoken against," and did nothing precipitous. The accusations against Bennett gained credence when Joseph learned of his attempts to persuade a young woman "that he intended to marry her." Joseph dispatched Hyrum Smith and William Law to make inquiries, and in early July 1841 he learned that Bennett had a wife and children living in the east. Non-LDS sources confirmed Bennett's infidelity: one noted that he "heard it from almost every person in town that [his wife] left him in consequence of his ill treatment of her home and his intimacy with other women." Another source reported that Bennett's wife "declared that she could no longer live with him…it would be the seventh family that he had parted during their union."

When confronted with the evidence privately, Bennett confessed and promised to reform. He did not, though Joseph did not make his sins public until nearly a year later.

See also:

John C. Bennett

Other examples of misplaced trust include George M. Hinckle, who sold Joseph out to the Missouri militia (resulting in his near-execution and his imprisonment in Liberty Jail) and William Law, who would help publish the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper which called for Joseph's death and contributed to the martyrdom.

⍗

Learn more about Joseph Smith: character

Wiki links	Early womanizer?
FAIR links	Don Bradley, "Knowing Brother Joseph: How the Historical Record Demonstrates the Prophet’s Religious Sincerity," Proceedings of the 2023 FAIR Conference (August 2023). link Gregory Smith, "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Plural Marriage* (*but were afraid to ask)," Proceedings of the 2009 FAIR Conference (August 2009). link
Online	Brian C. Hales and Gregory L. Smith, "A Response to Grant Palmer's 'Sexual Allegations against Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Polygamy in Nauvoo'," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 12/8 (10 October 2014). [183–236] link
Video	"Joseph Smith and fraud allegations," BH Roberts Foundation print-link.
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young Joseph Smith

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism—Joseph found guilty of being "a con man"?

Critical sources

Early works that label Joseph a "juggler" or "conjurer" “A hungry lean-faced villain,” The Reflector (Palmyra, New York) 3d series, no. 7 (30 June 1830): xxx. off-site [citation needed] Rev. John Shearer, letter of 18 November 1830; reproduced in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 4:92-93. “Gold Bible, No. 5,” The Reflector (Palmyra, New York) 2, no. 14 (28 February 1831): ??. off-site [citation needed] A.W.B. [Abraham W. Benton], “Mormonites,” Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate 2/15 (Utica, New York) (9 April 1831): 1. "Although [Joseph] constantly failed in his pretensions, still he had his dupes who put implicit confidence in all his words....It is reported, and probably true, that he commenced his juggling by stealing and hiding property belonging to his neighbors, and when inquiry was made, he would look in his wone (his gift and power) and tell where it was." Eber D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed (Painesville, OH, 1834), 16. (Affidavits examined) Later works that use the modern terms "con man," "confidence man," or "con game" Harry M. Beardsley, Joseph Smith and His Mormon Empire (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1931), 43. Wesley P. Walters, "Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, N.Y., Court Trials," Westminster Theological Journal 36/2 (Winter 1974): 141. Wesley P. Walters, "From Occult to Cult With Joseph Smith, Jr.," Journal of Pastoral Practice 1/2 (Summer 1977): 122. Kenneth H. Winn, Exiles in a Land of Liberty : Mormons in America, 1830–1846 (Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press, 1989), 82, see also index. ISBN 0807818291 David Persuitte, Joseph Smith and the Origins of The Book of Mormon (2nd edition), (McFarland & Company, October 2000), 37 ( Index of claims ) Craig Criddle, "Sidney Rigdon:Creating the Book of Mormon," e-paper, sidneyrigdon.com (originally published 8 October 2005; revised 15 Mar 2009), sec 2., part 6. Dale R. Broadhurst, "Joseph Smith: Nineteenth Century Con Man?" sidneyrigdon.com (web paper, accessed 12 November 2010).

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism—Joseph's 1826 trial

Critical sources

“Complaints of a Mormonite,” Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate (Utica, New York) ( 5 September 1835): 285. off-site “Mormonism,” Morning Star (Limerick, Maine) 7, no. 20 (16 November 1832). Reprinted from the Christian Herald (Boston), circa November 1832. off-site A.W.B., “Mormonites,” Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate (Utica, New York) 2, no. 15 (9 April 1831): 120. off-site Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 44-46 ( Index of claims ) Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 30. ( Index of claims ) John Dehlin, "Why People Leave the LDS Church," (2008). Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised) (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), 184. ( Index of claims ) MormonThink.com website (as of 28 April 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm Richard N. and Joan K. Ostling, Mormon America: The Power and the Promise, (New York:HarperCollins Publishers, 2000), 25. ( Index of claims ) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 67-70.( Index of claims ) Wikipedia article "Joseph Smith, Jr."–Primary editor: COgden, with additional contributions by multiple editors. ( FAIR's Analysis of this Wikipedia article)

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

Response to claim: 31 - “Did he use the Urim and Thummim, prepared by God and stored with the plates, to translate the record, or did he use the chocolate-colored stone found in Mr. Chase’s well?”

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

Regarding the Book of Mormon translation, the author asks, “Did he use the Urim and Thummim, prepared by God and stored with the plates, to translate the record, or did he use the chocolate-colored stone found in Mr. Chase’s well?”

Author's sources: Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, ‘’Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, Prophet’s Wife, “Elect Lady,” Polygamy’s Foe 1804-1879’’(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984); David Whitmer, ‘’An Address to All Belivers in Christ’’ (Richmond, Mo.: David Whitmer, 1887), 12.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Joseph used both instruments (the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone) during the translation.

Gospel Topics (lds.org), "Book of Mormon Translation"

Gospel Topics (lds.org), (2013)

These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters. In ancient times, Israelite priests used the Urim and Thummim to assist in receiving divine communications. Although commentators differ on the nature of the instrument, several ancient sources state that the instrument involved stones that lit up or were divinely illumin[at]ed. Latter-day Saints later understood the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer exclusively to the interpreters. Joseph Smith and others, however, seem to have understood the term more as a descriptive category of instruments for obtaining divine revelations and less as the name of a specific instrument.

Click here to view the complete article

Response to claim: 32 - The author claims that Joseph attempted to “join the Methodist Church in 1828, eight years after the Father and Son allegedly told him that all the churches were apostate

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Joseph attempted to “join the Methodist Church in 1828, eight years after the Father and Son allegedly told him that all the churches were apostate….Why did he ignore God’s command to ‘join none of them’?”

Author's sources: Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, ‘’Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record’’ (Salt Lake City: Smith Research Associates, 1994), 55, 61, n. 49

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Nobody who has charged Joseph Smith with joining a church between 1820 and 1830 has ever produced any authentic denominational membership record that would substantiate such a claim.

First Vision | Alleged Contradictions

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unmasked/Chapter 3

Critics have routinely asserted that Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision contain contradictions. This page gathers all the alleged "contradictions" and clarifies each, showing that Joseph Smith's accounts can easily be harmonized. Critics have challenged the First Vision on other grounds. They argue that there are embellishments and that there are historical anachronisms in the accounts. If you do not find what you're looking for on this page, be sure to visit those two pages that address embellishments or historical anachronisms.

---

One or Two Personages?

Joseph Smith wrote several accounts of the First Vision. In his earliest written account from 1832, he speaks clearly about seeing “the Lord.” In later accounts, especially those from 1835 and 1838, he says that he saw two personages—God the Father and Jesus Christ. Some people claim this means Joseph changed his story. A closer look shows there are good reasons for the difference.

1. The 1832 Account Does Not Leave God the Father Out

Even though Joseph does not clearly describe God the Father appearing in the 1832 account, he still refers to Him. At the start of the history, Joseph says that the First Vision was when he was “receiving the testimony from on high.” In Joseph’s later accounts, that “testimony” is when God the Father introduces Jesus Christ and tells Joseph who He is.

In the Bible and other scripture, a voice that comes “from heaven” or “from on high” usually means God the Father. Joseph used this same kind of language both before and after 1832. Because of this, many scholars believe Joseph understood the voice “from on high” to be the Father, even if he did not describe seeing Him clearly in that part of the story.

There is also a line in the 1832 account that says, “the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.” Some readers think this could mean two beings—one who opens the heavens and another who appears.

2. Scripture Often Describes Visions This Way

Joseph’s way of writing in 1832 matches how visions are described in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. In the Book of Mormon, Lehi sees God on His throne, but Jesus Christ is the one who comes down and speaks to him. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul describes seeing Jesus Christ in a vision, but he does not say he saw God the Father.

Joseph appears to have modeled part of his 1832 account after Paul’s experience. Since Paul focused on Christ and not the Father, Joseph may have done the same in his first written telling.

3. The 1832 Account Focuses on Jesus Christ

In the 1832 account, the main message is that Joseph’s sins were forgiven. In later accounts, Jesus Christ is the one who delivers that message after the Father introduces Him. This suggests that Joseph focused on Jesus in 1832 because Jesus was the one speaking to him and forgiving his sins. The account is centered on what mattered most to Joseph at that moment.

4. Writing Was Harder for Joseph Than Speaking

Joseph wrote the 1832 account himself, and it was the first time he tried to write his life story. Later accounts were mostly spoken and written down by others. Joseph once said that writing felt limiting and difficult for him. Because of this, the 1832 account is shorter and less detailed. As time went on, Joseph became better at explaining what happened and used clearer language.

5. The Accounts Are More Alike Than Different

Three of Joseph’s four main accounts clearly say that two personages appeared. The 1832 account can still be read in a way that fits with the others. The differences mostly come from what Joseph chose to emphasize, not from changing what he experienced.

Fire or Light?

Critics sometimes argue that Joseph Smith contradicted himself by saying that a “pillar of fire” appeared in some accounts of the First Vision and a “pillar of light” in others. A closer look at scripture, language, and Joseph’s own explanations shows that this difference is not a real contradiction.

First, in the Bible and other scriptures, fire and light are often used to describe the same divine presence. God appears to Moses in a burning bush that gives light but does not burn the bush (Exodus 3). The Lord leads Israel with a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day (Exodus 13:21), showing that fire can function as a source of light. Heavenly beings are also described as shining, glowing, or appearing “like fire.” Because of this, describing a divine manifestation as either “fire” or “light” fits well within biblical language.

Second, Joseph’s own descriptions connect fire and light, rather than treating them as opposites. In the 1832 account, he says he saw a “pillar of fire, light above the brightness of the sun at noon day.” This wording already blends the two ideas. Joseph appears to be using familiar biblical imagery to describe something intensely bright and powerful, not trying to give a scientific description of its physical makeup.

Third, different words can describe the same experience, especially when someone is trying to put an extraordinary event into ordinary language. A blazing light can look like fire. Fire itself gives off light. When Joseph told or wrote about his experience in different settings and for different audiences, he used different words that pointed to the same reality—a brilliant, heavenly manifestation coming from God.

Fourth, Joseph’s later accounts aim for clarity, not correction. As he retold the story over time, he often chose words that would help listeners better understand what he saw. “Light” may have been clearer and less confusing than “fire” for later audiences, especially since the pillar did not burn anything. This is the same way people today might describe the same event differently depending on context, without contradicting themselves.

In short, the use of “pillar of fire” in one account and “pillar of light” in another reflects biblical style, natural language variation, and growing clarity, not a contradiction. Both expressions describe the same overwhelming divine glory and are completely consistent with each other and with scripture.

The Lord or an Angel?

Critics have occasionally asserted that early Latter-day Saint sources understood Joseph Smith’s First Vision to involve only an angel rather than God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is based on selective quotations from early leaders, secondary retellings, and the use of the term angel in some historical contexts. Joseph Smith’s own early accounts also contribute to the confusion. In his 1835 journal, Joseph referred to his youthful experiences as involving the “first visitation of angels” and stated that “many angels” were present. Importantly, the same account also explicitly describes the appearance of two personages, one of whom testified that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. A careful examination of the primary sources, however, shows that these references do not reflect a doctrinal misunderstanding of the First Vision, but instead arise from differences in terminology, abbreviated retellings, and occasional conflation of distinct visionary events.

Oliver Cowdery

Oliver Cowdery wrote an early history of Joseph Smith in 1834–1835 for a Church newspaper called the Messenger and Advocate. Critics often point to this account to claim that Cowdery believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. A closer and simpler reading of Cowdery’s writing shows that this conclusion goes beyond what Cowdery actually said.

In his account, Cowdery explained that Joseph Smith was confused by the many churches around him and wanted to know whether God really existed. Joseph prayed, and an angel appeared and told him that his sins were forgiven. Cowdery then moved directly into a story that closely matches later accounts of the angel Moroni and the gold plates. Because Cowdery did not clearly separate these events, some readers assume he believed there was only one vision.

However, Cowdery’s goal was not to give a detailed timeline of every vision Joseph experienced. He was writing a brief introduction to Joseph Smith’s calling as a prophet for readers who already believed Joseph was inspired by God. To keep the story simple, Cowdery combined Joseph’s early spiritual experiences into one shortened account focused on forgiveness and calling.

Cowdery even corrected himself in a later issue after realizing he had listed the wrong age for Joseph. This shows that the history was informal and not meant to be a carefully edited record. At no point did Cowdery say that Joseph had only one vision, nor did he deny later accounts that describe God the Father and Jesus Christ appearing to Joseph.

Cowdery’s writing also fits well with Joseph Smith’s own 1832 account, which focused more on Joseph seeking forgiveness than on explaining exactly who appeared to him. At the time, people often used the word angel in a general way to describe messages from heaven.

There is no evidence that Oliver Cowdery rejected or misunderstood the First Vision. His use of the word angel reflects a short, simplified retelling of Joseph Smith’s early experiences, not a different belief about what Joseph actually saw.

Brigham Young

Critics sometimes claim that Brigham Young believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is usually based on a short quotation taken from one of Young’s sermons, where he said, “The Lord did not come… but He did send His angel.” When read by itself, this line can sound like Brigham Young was denying the First Vision as it is taught today. However, reading the full sermon shows that this interpretation is incorrect:

The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him. (Journal of Discourses 2:170-171)

In the full statement, Brigham Young was not saying that the Lord never came to Joseph Smith. Instead, he was explaining how the Lord chose to reveal Himself. Young specifically said that the Lord did not come “with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory.” In other words, God did not appear with overwhelming display, grandeur, or force. Instead, He worked through humble means that matched Joseph Smith’s situation and character.

Brigham Young then explained that the Lord “did send His angel” to Joseph Smith. Importantly, the sentence continues by saying that the Lord informed Joseph that he should not join any of the religious sects because they were all wrong. Grammatically and logically, Brigham Young is describing the angel as the messenger, while the message itself comes from the Lord. This fits well with how divine communication is described throughout the Bible, where God often teaches or commands through angels.

It is also important to remember that Joseph Smith experienced multiple angelic visitations, especially from the angel Moroni. Brigham Young frequently spoke in broad, summarized language about Joseph’s early calling, often blending different events together to make a general point about divine authority rather than to give a detailed history lesson. His sermon was focused on showing that God chose a humble young man and guided him step by step, not on listing every vision in precise order.

There is strong evidence elsewhere that Brigham Young accepted Joseph Smith’s account of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ. He taught openly that God the Father and the Son were separate beings and fully supported Joseph Smith’s prophetic testimony. The selective use of one sentence from a longer sermon does not reflect Young’s overall beliefs.

When read in full and in context, Brigham Young’s words do not show confusion or disagreement about the First Vision. Instead, they show his effort to explain that God did not appear with dramatic display, but worked through angels and personal revelation to call Joseph Smith in a quiet and humble way.

Lucy Mack Smith

Some critics claim that Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, said his First Vision was only of an angel — and not of God the Father and Jesus Christ. This idea usually comes from a letter she wrote in January 1831. However, when her words are read carefully and in context, it is clear that she was not trying to describe the First Vision itself, and she did not deny that Joseph saw God and Christ. Lucy’s letter was not written to explain every vision Joseph had. Instead, she wrote it to introduce the Book of Mormon to her siblings and explain how that book came forth. In that letter, she quoted language that closely matches a passage in the Church’s Articles and Covenants (Doctrine and Covenants 20:5–8) — language that refers to God ministering to Joseph by an angel who gave him commandments and assistance to translate the plates.

Critics sometimes point to this and say Lucy was referring to the First Vision. But her letter does not say that the visit of the angel was Joseph’s first spiritual experience, nor does it suggest that he only saw an angel instead of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Instead, her wording reflects the common devotional style and biblical language of the time — where an angel is described as a messenger of God who brings instruction or revelation.

In her letter, Lucy actually echoes Doctrine & Covenants 20, received in 1830, that already assumes the First Vision had taken place and that Joseph had received a mission from the Lord. The letter closely paraphrases that text.

• D&C 20:5-8 (April 1830)

(verse 5) "After it was truly manifested unto this first elder [i.e., Joseph Smith] that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world; (verse 6) But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness; (verse 7) And gave unto him commandments which inspired him; (verse 8) And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon."(D&C 20꞉5-8

Compare this with Mother Smith's letter:

• LUCY'S LETTER (January 1831)

"Joseph, after repenting of his sins and humbling himself before God, was visited by an holy angel whose countenance was as lightning and whose garments were white above all whiteness, who gave unto him commandments which inspired him from on high; and who gave unto him, by the means of which was before prepared, that he should translate this book."

Compare both of the above sources with the Prophet's 1832 First Vision narrative:

• FIRST VISION ACCOUNT (September–November 1832)

"I felt to mourn for my own sins....[The Lord said during the First Vision,] 'thy sins are forgiven thee'....after many days I fell into transgression and sinned in many things....I called again upon the Lord and he shewed unto me a heavenly vision for behold an angel of the Lord came and stood before me....the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book therefore I commenced translating the characters."

Critics also fail to point out that almost exactly two months before Lucy Mack Smith wrote her letter, four Latter-day Saint missionaries (Oliver Cowdery, Orson Pratt, Peter Whitmer Jr. and Ziba Peterson) were publicly teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God "personally" and had received a commission from Him to preach true religion. It is specifically stated in the newspaper article that records this information that the missionaries made their comments about 1 November 1830 - shortly after the Church was formally organized. Some critics who do acknowledge this newspaper article attempt to dismiss it by calling it a "vague" reference, despite the clear wording that the missionaries taught that Joseph "had seen God frequently and personally."

Although one critic of the Church indicates that the letter was “unpublished until 1906”, he does not indicate where, or by whom. First published by Ben E. Rich, President of the Southern States Mission, the letter has been long available to interested students of Latter-day Saint history.

It should be noted that the Lucy Mack Smith letter was not even available for publication until just shortly before it appeared in print because it was in a descendant's possession. The introduction to the letter published in the Elders' Journal states: "The following very interesting and earnest gospel letter written by Lucy Mack Smith, mother of the Prophet Joseph, to her brother, Solomon Mack and his wife, was presented to President Joseph F. Smith a few weeks ago by Mrs. Candace Mack Barker, of Keene, N[ew] H[ampshire], a grand-daughter of Solomon Mack, to whom the letter is addressed. Mrs. Barker stated that it was her desire to place the letter in the hands of those who would appreciate its contents and preserve it as she felt it properly deserved." The idea that Lucy Mack was trying to hide a First Vision story is not supported by the historical record.

In short, Lucy Mack Smith’s 1831 letter does not say that Joseph’s First Vision was of an angel instead of God and Christ. Instead, she was summarizing part of the early Church’s understanding of how revelation came to Joseph — in this case, through an angelic messenger connected with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon — and she did not intend to give a full history of every heavenly manifestation Joseph experienced.

John Taylor

Some critics point to a statement by John Taylor in an 1879 sermon where he referred to Joseph Smith asking an angel which church was right. They claim this shows that Taylor was confused about the First Vision. While the quotation itself is accurate, it does not show confusion when it is placed in its full historical setting.

“…just as it was when the prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right. What, none of them? No. we will not stop to argue that question; the angel merely told him to join none of them that none of them were right.” (Journal of Discourses vol. 20, p. 167)

John Taylor was deeply familiar with the First Vision account. In fact, he served as the editor of the Church’s newspaper, Times and Seasons, in 1842–1843. During that time, he oversaw the publication of Joseph Smith’s history, which included the clear account of the First Vision describing the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ. It is not reasonable to believe that Taylor could publish this material without understanding or accepting it.

Taylor also had direct involvement with the Pearl of Great Price. The First Vision account was included in the Pearl of Great Price when the Pearl of Great Price was first published in 1851, and John Taylor approved a new American edition in 1878—only one year before the sermon critics quote. This shows that he was well aware of the official First Vision narrative.

On October 7th, 1878, nearly a year and a half before his 1879 sermon, he wrote a letter in behalf of the Quorum of the Twelve commenting upon a book by Edward W. Tullidge entitled Life of Joseph Smith. In that letter, he wrote:

God the Father and Jesus, with the ancient apostles, prophets, patriarchs and men of God have revealed to Joseph Smith principles on which hang the destinies of the world

Even more telling is that on the same day as the 1879 sermon where Taylor used the word angel, he also spoke of the Father, the Son, and Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith:

When Jesus sent forth his servants formerly he sent them to preach this Gospel. When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith, he had a priesthood conferred upon him which he conferred upon others for the purpose of manifesting the laws of life, the Gospel of the Son of God, by direct authority, that light and truth might be spread forth among all nations. (Journal of Discourses 20:257)

This shows that Taylor was not denying or forgetting the First Vision. Instead, he was speaking in a brief and informal way during part of his remarks and then referring more fully to Joseph’s experiences elsewhere.

So why did John Taylor use the word angel at all? The most likely explanation is that he was either speaking generally about divine messengers or using biblical language, where heavenly beings are sometimes called angels even when they act with God’s authority. In the Bible, for example, God Himself is sometimes called an “angel” because the word means messenger.

When all of John Taylor’s writings and sermons are considered together, it becomes clear that he fully understood and taught that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. The single reference to an angel does not reflect confusion, but rather a brief or symbolic use of language taken out of context.

Orson Pratt

Some critics claim that Orson Pratt believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is usually based on a short quote from an 1869 sermon where Pratt said that “God had sent an angel” to Joseph Smith:

“By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him;… This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)

When this short quote is read by itself, it can sound like Pratt misunderstood the First Vision. But reading the full sermon shows that this is not true. In the same sermon, Orson Pratt clearly explained what Joseph Smith said he saw.

By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him; that through his faith, prayers, and sincere repentance he had beheld a supernatural vision, that he had seen a pillar of fire descend from Heaven, and saw two glorious personages clothed upon with this pillar of fire, whose countenance shone like the sun at noonday; that he heard one of these personages say, pointing to the other, ‘This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.’ This occurred before this young man was fifteen years of age; and it was a startling announcement to make in the midst of a generation so completely given up to the traditions of their fathers; and when this was proclaimed by this young, unlettered boy to the priests and the religious societies in the State of New York, they laughed him to scorn. ‘What!’ said they, “visions and revelations in our day! God speaking to men in our day!” They looked upon him as deluded; they pointed the finger of scorn at him and warned their congregations against him. ‘The canon of Scripture is closed up; no more communications are to be expected from Heaven. The ancients saw heavenly visions and personages; they heard the voice of the Lord; they were inspired by the Holy Ghost to receive revelations, but behold no such thing is to be given to man in our day, neither has there been for many generations past.’ This was the style of the remarks made by religionists forty years ago. This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)

Pratt taught that Joseph saw a pillar of fire come down from heaven and that he saw two glorious personages inside that light. He described their faces shining like the sun and said that Joseph heard one of them speak while pointing to the other and saying, “This is my Beloved Son, hear ye him.” This is a clear and accurate description of the First Vision as Joseph Smith later recorded it.

Pratt’s use of the word angel at the beginning of the sermon does not replace or contradict this description. Instead, Pratt was summarizing Joseph’s message to the world in simple terms before explaining the details. In the 1800s, Church leaders often used the word angel to mean a messenger sent by God, especially when speaking to audiences who were unfamiliar with Latter-day Saint beliefs. At the end of the sermon, Pratt also spoke about Joseph Smith being visited “four years afterwards” by another angel. This clearly refers to the visit of the angel Moroni, showing that Pratt understood Joseph Smith had more than one heavenly experience and that these events were separate.

When the full sermon is read, it is clear that Orson Pratt knew and taught that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. The claim that Pratt was confused comes from quoting only a small part of his words and leaving out the section where he gives a detailed and correct explanation of the vision.

Wilford Woodruff

Wilford Woodruff is claimed to have said in an 1855 sermon that the Church had been established in the last days only by "the ministering of an holy angel", and not by the Father and the Son. The following text is the one used by critics of the Church to try and make it look like Apostle Wilford Woodruff taught something other than the traditional storyline of the First Vision.

"That same organization and gospel that Christ died for...is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy angel from God...The angel taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world...He told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of His kingdom in the world"

An examination of the original text of the sermon in question reveals that Wilford Woodruff's words are being taken out of context by critics. The bolded words below show which sections of the paragraph have been selected by detractors to try and rewrite history.

"The gospel has gone forth in our day in its true glory, power, order, and light, as it always did when God had a people among men that He acknowledged. That same organization and gospel that Christ died for, and the Apostles spilled their blood to vindicate, is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy ANGEL from God, out of heaven, who held converse with man, and revealed unto him the darkness that enveloped the world, and unfolded unto him the gross darkness that surrounded the nations, those scenes that should take place in this generation, and would follow each other in quick succession, even unto the coming of the Messiah. The ANGEL taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world; and THE LORD gave him commandments, and sealed upon him the Priesthood, and gave him power to administer the ordinances of the house of the Lord. HE told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of HIS kingdom in the world, that the people had turned away from HIS true order, changed the ordinances, and broken the everlasting covenant, and inherited lies and things wherein their was no profit. HE told him the time had come to lay the foundation for the establishment of the Kingdom of God among men for the last time, preparatory to the winding up scene" (emphasis added).

When critics break the above quotation into pieces in the manner that they have, they create an unrecognized problem for themselves. A careful reading of this material indicates that it was not the angel who told Joseph Smith that "the gospel was not among men"; it was the "the Lord" who provided this information (see the capitalized/italicized words above: ANGEL, THE LORD, HE, HIS). The anti-Mormons have, through their editing of the text, made it falsely appear as if the words of the angel and the Lord were one and the same. Woodruff's quote does not state that it was the angel who told Joseph Smith that "the gospel was not among men"; it was the "the Lord" who provided this information

The attempt to use Wilford Woodruff's words to obscure the details of Mormon history is a misguided one because the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that critics advocate. Elder Woodruff was in the second highest leadership quorum of the Church during the lifetime of Joseph Smith and never once did he mention that the Prophet told two different tales about the founding of the last gospel dispensation.

It is difficult to believe that Elder Wilford Woodruff did not have an accurate knowledge of the traditional First Vision story prior to his 1855 remarks since on 3 February 1842 he became the superintendent of the printing office in Nauvoo, Illinois where the Times and Seasons newspaper was published and remained there through at least 8 November 1843. These dates are significant because in-between them the Prophet Joseph Smith had two separate accounts of the First Vision printed on the pages of the Times and Seasons and so Elder Woodruff would have been the person who was ultimately responsible for their production and distribution.

• Times and Seasons 3 no. 9 (1 March 1842), 706–707. off-site GospeLink [Wentworth Letter First Vision account].
• Times and Seasons 3 no. 11 (1 April 1842), 748–749. off-site GospeLink [History of the Church official First Vision account].

It should also be noted that before Elder Woodruff made his 1855 remarks six other members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles published First Vision accounts: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852). It seems highly unlikely that Elder Woodruff would have remained unaware of these publications, which were made available to the public by his closest associates.

George A. Smith

Apostle George A. Smith said on two separate occasions that Joseph Smith's First Vision was of an "angel"—not of the Father and the Son. However, the argument that George A. Smith was simply not aware of a Father-and-Son First Vision account when he made his "angel" statements is nonsense since it can be shown from a documentary standpoint that he did indeed have prior knowledge of such a thing. An argument of ignorance is also untenable in light of the fact that Brother Smith's close associates in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had published orthodox recitals of the First Vision on nine different occasions long BEFORE he made his verbal missteps at the pulpit: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852).

This does not mean that Brother Smith was not aware of the Father and the Son appearing to the Prophet at the time that he made his anomalous remarks. The following timeline demonstrates that the Prophet's cousin was well aware of the official version of events. His out-of-place comments need to be evaluated from that perspective.

• 7 April 1854: Elder George A. Smith was appointed at General Conference to be the new Church Historian.

• 9 August 1855: Elder George A. Smith wrote to the editor of the Deseret News on 9 August 1855 and gave permission to publish a short Church history that was originally requested for inclusion in a non-Mormon publication, but which ultimately did not appear in print. When Elder Smith told the First Vision story in this history he said that Joseph Smith beheld "two glorious Beings" during the experience. The capitalization of the word "Beings" indicates that the two individuals were considered to be Deity. Elder Smith then went on to tell the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon which, he said, was instigated by an "angel" who was commissioned of God (Deseret News, vol. 5, no. 26, 5 September 1855, 2).

• 15 August 1855: The First Vision account as found in the Wentworth Letter (1 March 1842) was published in Salt Lake City in connection with the official History of the Church. This account speaks of "two glorious personages" and then later speaks of the single "angel" who was involved in revealing the existence of the Book of Mormon plates. Since Elder Smith was the Church Historian at this time he likely would have known about the content of this publication.

• 6 August 1862: Elder George A. Smith's short Church history (see 9 August 1855 above) was reprinted on the pages of the Deseret News. In this First Vision account Elder Smith referred to "two glorious Beings" and then later spoke of the single "angel" who was involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon

• 15 November 1864: In a discourse on historical matters, Elder George A. Smith quoted directly from the official First Vision account, which was first published in the Times and Seasons newspaper on 15 March 1842 and 1 April 1842. Elder Smith recited the line, “This is my Beloved Son, hear Him” – leaving no doubt that he knew the specific identities of the two "personages" who appeared to Joseph Smith during the First Vision event.

• 15 November 1868: President George A. Smith (now a counselor in the First Presidency) accurately related many First Vision story elements - as published in the Church’s official history - but mistakenly mixed them together with several accurate angel Moroni story elements - as published in the Church’s official history. He said:

1. Joseph Smith was 14 or 15 years old

2. There was a revival involving Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists

3. There was a scramble after the revival to secure converts

4. Unpleasant feelings were the result

5. Joseph Smith had attended those meetings

6. Joseph Smith prayed because of James 1:5

7. The Lord sent an angel to Joseph Smith in answer to his prayer

8. Joseph Smith asked the angel which church was right and the angel said they were all wrong

9. The vision was repeated several times and Joseph Smith was commanded to tell his father about it

10. Joseph Smith’s father told him to observe the instructions that were given to him.

• 20 June 1869: President George A. Smith mistakenly mixed together accurate First Vision story elements with accurate angel Moroni story elements. He said:

1. Some members of Joseph Smith’s family joined the Presbyterians

2. Joseph Smith reflected much on religion

3. Joseph Smith was astonished at the bad feelings manifested at the end of the reformation

4. Joseph Smith was led to pray because of James 1:5

5. Joseph Smith had a vision of a holy angel

6. Joseph Smith asked which of the denominations in the vicinity was right

7. Joseph Smith was told that they had all gone astray and wandered into darkness

8. Joseph Smith was instructed not to join any of them

9. Joseph Smith was told that God was about to restore the gospel in its simplicity and purity.

• 1869: President George A. Smith published a small pamphlet which contained the Wentworth Letter account of the First Vision.

• 20 November 1870: President George A. Smith accurately related several First Vision story elements at the pulpit. This time he did NOT mistakenly include any angel Moroni story elements in his narrative.

1. The Lord revealed Himself to Joseph Smith

2. Joseph Smith was puzzled by hearing learned men preach about different doctrines

3. Joseph Smith saw the learned men quarrel over converts

4. Joseph Smith prayed humbly, with faith, because of James 1:5

5. Joseph Smith asked the Lord which was the right way

6. The Lord showed Joseph Smith the right way.

The timeline shows that George A. Smith was accurate in relating First Vision details when he had a physical text to read from. The pattern that can be seen in the timeline above is that George A. Smith was accurate in relating First Vision details when he had a physical text to read from or was formally writing down historical matters; he was accurate on many points when he was talking extemporaneously; he corrected himself after delivering erroneous verbal remarks.

Orson Hyde

Orson Hyde said during a General Conference in 1854:"Some one may say, 'If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Saviour come himself to communicate this intelligence to the world?'" Was Orson Hyde unaware of the details of the Father and Son appearing to Joseph in the First Vision?

When Elder Orson Hyde was discoursing in General Conference on 6 April 1854 he was NOT speaking about the First Vision (a story he knew very well from previously published literature) - he was trying to teach the Latter-day Saints about "the grand harvest" which would take place during "the winding up scene" and the part that "angels" would have in it. The evidence suggests that Elder Hyde was utilizing section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants as the basis for some of his remarks about angels, NOT about the events that took place within the Sacred Grove.

The proper context of Elder Hyde’s remarks can be determined simply by examining his opening statement. There he makes it clear that because it was currently the season for sowing crops he wanted to discourse on some parable imagery found in the 13th chapter of the New Testament book of Matthew (verses 1–9, 36–43).

Elder Hyde specifically mentioned that the "angels" were the agency through which "this reaping dispensation was committed to the children of men" and that these heavenly beings held "the keys of this dispensation." With these words he may well have been referring to the episode recorded in section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants where angels tell Joseph Smith - "the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands" (v. 16). They also "committed the gospel of the dispensation of Abraham" to the Prophet (v. 12) and, furthermore, they "committed unto [him] the keys of the gathering" (v. 11) - [harvest imagery]. Elder Hyde said in his sermon that the angels brought the news that "the time of the end was drawing nigh" and, significantly, the last of the angels to appear in D&C 110 said, "the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors" (v. 16).

A summary of Elder Hyde’s comments shows that he did not intend to speak about the First Vision at all; he wanted to impress upon that Saints that the latter-day work of gathering (the figurative harvest imagery) was inaugurated by angels and they would also play a role in the figurative separation of the wheat and the tares.

• 15 June 1841:

When Orson Hyde was in London, England on a mission he wrote to the Prophet Joseph Smith and informed him: “I have written a book to publish in the German language, setting forth our doctrine and principles in as clear and concise a manner as I possibly could. After giving the history of the rise of the Church, in something the manner that Br[other] O[rson] Pratt did, I have written a snug little article upon every point of doctrine believed by the Saints.”

Elder Hyde is referring to Elder Pratt’s missionary tract - published in Scotland in 1840 - called An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, which contained the first known published, full-length description of the First Vision event. Elder Hyde’s pamphlet contained a recounting of the First Vision that was very similar to the one found in Elder Pratt’s pamphlet.

• 1842: Elder Hyde’s pamphlet was published in Frankfurt, Germany sometime in the year 1842. It was called Eine Stimme aus dem Schoose der Erde (A Cry from the Wilderness, A Voice from the Depths of the Earth). This was the first known foreign-language rendition of the First Vision story.

• 6 February 1851: Elder Lorenzo Snow wrote a letter to Elder Orson Hyde on 6 February 1851 from Geneva, Switzerland and informed him that his own missionary tract called “The Voice of Joseph” (written between 23 July 1850 and 6 September 1850) was circulating in both Italy and Switzerland.

From the above information it can be determined that before Orson Hyde made his 1854 remarks he was aware of at least three orthodox First Vision accounts produced by members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

1. Orson Pratt’s missionary tract [published in 1840],

2. his own missionary tract [written in 1841], and

3. Lorenzo Snow’s missionary tract [written in 1850].

It is high unlikely that Elder Hyde did not possess an accurate understanding of the First Vision story before the year 1854.

Heber C. Kimball

Critics quote a portion of a sermon delivered at the Salt Lake Tabernacle on November 8, 1857 by Heber C. Kimball, in which it appears that he denies that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith. Here is what the critics quote:

Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come himself and call, but he sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates. Did God come himself? No; he sent Moroni and told him there was a record,…Well, then Peter comes along. Why did not God come? He sent Peter, do you not see? Why did he not come along? Because he has agents to attend to his business, and he sits upon his throne and is established at head-quarters, and tells this man, ‘Go and do this;’ and it is behind the vail just as it is here. You have got to learn that.

The very same evidence that was used in the construction of the anti-Mormon charge about Heber C. Kimball can be used to topple it. Kimball's remarks about God not appearing cannot be legitimately applied to Joseph Smith's First Vision experience. This argument is a classic example of taking an isolated statement out of its proper context and drawing a false conclusion based upon faulty evidence. When the entire sermon of Heber C. Kimball is examined in detail, the anti-Mormon argument quickly falls apart. Here is the full quote:

If God confers gifts, and blessings, and promises, and glories, and immortality, and eternal lives, and you receive them and treasure them up, then our Father and our God has joy in that man. . . . Do you not see [that] God is not pleased with any man except those that receive the gifts, and treasure them up, and practice upon those gifts? And He gives those gifts, and confers them upon you, and will have us to practice upon them. Now, these principles to me are plain and simple.

Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come Himself and call, but He sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates. Did God come Himself? No: He sent Moroni and told him there was a record, and says he, "That record is [a] matter that pertains to the Lamanites, and it tells when their fathers came out of Jerusalem, and how they came, and all about it; and, says he, "If you will do as I tell you, I will confer a gift upon you." Well, he conferred it upon him, because Joseph said he would do as he told him. "I want you to go to work and take the Urim and Thummim, and translate this book, and have it published, that this nation may read it." Do you not see, by Joseph receiving the gift that was conferred upon him, you and I have that record?

Well, when this took place, Peter came along to him and gave power and authority, and, says he, "You go and baptize Oliver Cowdery, and then ordain him a priest." He did it, and do you not see his works were in exercise? Then Oliver, having authority, baptized Joseph and ordained him a priest. Do you not see the works, how they manifest themselves?

Well, then Peter comes along. Why did not God come? He sent Peter, do you not see? Why did He not come along? Because He has agents to attend to His business, and He sits upon His throne and is established at headquarters, and tells this man, 'Go and do this'; and it is behind the veil just as it is here."

From a careful reading of this text it can be concluded that Kimball was talking about (#1) the appearance of the angel Moroni in 1823 in connection with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and (#2) the appearance of the apostle Peter in 1829 in connection with the bestowal of the Melchizedek Priesthood. He was talking about two heavenly beings bestowing "gifts" upon Joseph Smith on two different occasions; he was saying that in these two instances God sent His agents to accomplish particular works. However, Heber C. Kimball said absolutely nothing in this statement about the First Vision which occurred in 1820.

It cannot be successfully argued that Heber C. Kimball was not aware of the First Vision story by this point in time either, since no less a person than President Brigham Young recorded in his journal that Brother Kimball was present with several other General Authorities about two and a half months earlier (13 August 1857) when they placed a copy of the Pearl of Great Price inside the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple. This volume contained the 1838 account of the First Vision which was published by the Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois in 1842. There were also several other publications placed inside the temple cornerstone which rehearsed the First Vision story. These included:

• Lorenzo Snow's The Voice of Joseph
• Various tracts from Orson Pratt
• Franklin D. Richards's Compendium
• John Jaques's Catechism for Children
• Millennial Star, vol. 14 supplement
• Millennial Star, vol. 3

Joseph’s Age at the Time of First Vision

When Latter-day Saints describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision, they commonly note that he was very young at the time—about fourteen years old. This understanding comes primarily from Joseph’s later, more formal accounts, but it is also supported by his earliest writings when those documents are read in their historical context.

The most familiar account of the First Vision is Joseph Smith’s 1838–39 history, now canonized as Joseph Smith–History in the Pearl of Great Price. In that narrative, Joseph explained that the vision occurred in the spring of 1820, when he was “an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age.” Since Joseph was born on December 23, 1805, he would have been 14 years old during the spring of 1820, turning fifteen later that year.

Joseph’s other firsthand retellings of the First Vision are consistent with this timeline. In his 1835 account, he said the experience happened when he was “about 14 years old.” In an 1842 summary prepared for publication, he likewise stated that he was “about fourteen years of age” when the event took place. Even in casual recollections to acquaintances, Joseph repeatedly described the First Vision as something that happened in his early teens.

The main question arises from Joseph’s earliest known account, written in 1832. In this document, Joseph (or his scribe) stated that the vision occurred while he was “in the sixteenth year of my age.” At first glance, some readers assume this must mean Joseph was fifteen or even sixteen years old, creating a potential conflict with his later accounts. However, this phrase requires careful historical interpretation.

In early nineteenth-century English usage, saying someone was “in their sixteenth year” did not mean they were sixteen years old. Rather, it meant they had begun the year leading toward their sixteenth birthday. In other words, a person entered their “sixteenth year” immediately after turning fifteen, just as an infant is said to be “in their first year” from birth, not at age one. This older way of reckoning age was common in Joseph Smith’s day and appears in other contemporary documents.

Additionally, the phrase in the 1832 manuscript appears to have been inserted between the lines, suggesting it may reflect later clarification rather than careful chronological precision. The 1832 account itself was not intended as a polished autobiography; instead, it was a private, spiritual narrative focused on Joseph’s sins, repentance, and forgiveness, not on exact dates.

In the 1832 account, Frederick G. Williams inserted the "in the 16th year of my age" above Joseph's text after Joseph had already written it. (See: "History, circa Summer 1832," The Joseph Smith Papers)

When Joseph’s accounts are considered together, they present a coherent picture. He consistently placed the First Vision in the spring of 1820 and consistently described himself as about fourteen years old at the time. The wording in the 1832 account fits comfortably within this framework once historical language and age-counting conventions are taken into account.

In short, the documentary evidence supports the traditional understanding: Joseph Smith was fourteen years old when he experienced the First Vision, a young teenager seeking divine guidance in a time of religious confusion.

Joseph’s Motivation for Seeking Guidance from God

The multiple accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision have long attracted both devotion and criticism. Among the most common objections is the claim that Joseph changed his stated reason for praying over time. Critics argue that his earliest account (1832) presents a desire for forgiveness of sins as his primary motivation, while later accounts—especially the 1838 narrative canonized in the Pearl of Great Price—emphasize a desire to know which church was true. According to this view, the differing emphases represent a contradiction and suggest that the First Vision story evolved over time.

A close reading of all the available evidence, however, shows that this conclusion rests on an oversimplified comparison of selective phrases rather than on the full substance of the documents. When the accounts are read carefully and in their historical and religious context, Joseph Smith’s motivations appear consistent rather than contradictory. From the beginning, he expressed two closely related concerns: a desire to be forgiven of sins and a desire to worship God correctly by affiliating with the true church.

The Core Claim of the Criticism

Critics typically contrast two statements:

• 1832 account: “I cried unto the Lord for mercy, for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy.”
• 1838 account: “My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join.”

From these statements alone, critics conclude that Joseph originally prayed only for forgiveness and later revised his story to include questions about church authority. This comparison, however, strips both texts of their surrounding explanations and ignores the broader religious assumptions of Joseph Smith’s world.

A Close Reading of the 1832 Account

The 1832 account, partly written in Joseph Smith’s own hand, devotes significant space to describing the spiritual journey that led him to prayer. Far from portraying a narrow concern with personal guilt alone, the account reveals a young man grappling with multiple, interconnected questions.

Between the ages of twelve and fifteen, Joseph became deeply concerned about “the welfare of [his] immortal soul.” His search of the scriptures led him to compare biblical Christianity with the behavior and teachings of the denominations around him. This comparison caused him to “marvel exceedingly” and grieve that those who professed religion did not live in a manner consistent with scripture. Joseph further concluded—based on both scripture study and personal observation—that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.” He mourned not only for his own sins, but also “for the sins of the world,” reflecting concern for widespread religious corruption, not merely individual failure.

Only after recounting all of these considerations does Joseph explain why he prayed: “When I considered all these things… therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy.” His prayer was a response to the cumulative weight of doctrinal confusion, perceived apostasy, concern for correct worship, and personal conviction of sin.

In other words, forgiveness of sins was not the sole motivation for prayer—it was part of a broader religious crisis.

Forgiveness of Sins and the “True Church” in Joseph’s Religious World

Understanding Joseph Smith’s motivations requires recognizing an important feature of early nineteenth-century American Christianity. As historian Christopher C. Jones has observed, Joseph’s accounts strongly resemble Methodist conversion narratives, in which forgiveness of sins and correct church affiliation were inseparable. In Joseph’s religious culture, one found forgiveness by joining the right church and adhering to correct doctrine.

Under this framework, asking God for forgiveness inherently involved asking God which church—and which teachings—were correct. The two concerns rode in tandem, not in competition. Thus, even if the 1832 account emphasizes repentance language, it does not exclude institutional or doctrinal concerns. On the contrary, the account explicitly laments the failure of existing denominations to embody New Testament Christianity.

Significantly, in the vision itself, Joseph is told not merely that his sins are forgiven, but that “the world lieth in sin” and that religious leaders “draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me,” echoing Matthew 15:8–9. This language points beyond personal forgiveness toward a general apostasy and the need for divine restoration.

Scriptural Allusions and the Broader Apostasy Theme

The 1832 account also draws on scriptural language that Joseph later revisited during his translation of the Bible—particularly in JST Psalm 14. That psalm laments the loss of truth in the last days, declaring that “none doeth good” because religious teachers have gone astray. Scholars such as Joseph Fielding McConkie, Matthew Brown, Don Bradley, and Walker Wright have noted that Joseph’s JST rendering of Psalm 14 closely parallels themes in the First Vision and may even have influenced the language of his early history.

These parallels reinforce the idea that Joseph’s concern was not simply moral failure among individuals, but doctrinal corruption among religious teachers and institutions. Under this reading, the 1832 account implicitly addresses the same “which church is true?” question that later accounts state more explicitly.

The Later Accounts: Emphasis Without Contradiction

Joseph Smith’s later narrations of the First Vision vary in detail depending on audience and purpose. The 1835 account includes both concerns explicitly: uncertainty about which religious system was right and the declaration that his sins were forgiven. The 1838 account foregrounds religious confusion and the question of church authority but still alludes to “many other things” said during the vision that are not recorded—leaving room for experiences, such as forgiveness, described elsewhere.

Similarly, third-party retellings by Orson Pratt (1840) and Orson Hyde (1842) combine both themes: preparation for a future state, concern for salvation, confusion among denominations, and assurance of divine favor.

Rather than showing a shift in motivation, these accounts show selective emphasis, shaped by context and audience. None of them deny either concern; each highlights different aspects of the same religious struggle.

The claim that Joseph Smith changed his motivation for seeking revelation does not survive careful scrutiny. Across all accounts, Joseph presents himself as a young man profoundly concerned with salvation—how to prepare for eternity, how to worship God correctly, and how to receive forgiveness of sins. In his worldview, these were not separate questions but variations on the same theme. Differences among the First Vision accounts reflect changes in emphasis, audience, and narrative purpose—not contradiction. When read in context and within the religious culture of Joseph Smith’s time, the accounts form a coherent and internally consistent explanation of why he went to the grove to pray in 1820.

Rather than depicting an evolving fabrication, the evidence shows a stable core story: Joseph Smith sought divine guidance because he believed his soul—and the religious world around him—were in need of correction that only God could provide.

Knowing if God Existed

A frequently repeated claim in critical discussions of early Latter-day Saint history is that Oliver Cowdery taught that Joseph Smith did not even know whether a “Supreme Being” existed prior to 1823, thereby implying ignorance of God before the visit of the angel Moroni. This claim is based on a selective and decontextualized reading of Oliver Cowdery’s Church history, published in installments in the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate beginning in late 1834. When read carefully and in full historical context, Oliver’s account does not deny Joseph Smith’s First Vision, nor does it suggest that Joseph was an atheist prior to Moroni’s visit. Instead, it reflects a complex narrative strategy, one that presupposes Joseph’s earlier divine encounter while choosing not to narrate it directly.

Oliver Cowdery’s 1834–1835 History

In December 1834, Oliver Cowdery began publishing a formal history of the Church in the Messenger and Advocate. In the first installment, Oliver accurately placed Joseph Smith at fourteen years of age during a period of intense religious excitement and revivalism. He described the surrounding sectarian contention and Joseph’s deep concern for his soul—an account that clearly parallels Joseph Smith’s own descriptions of the circumstances leading to the First Vision.

This initial installment builds narrative momentum toward a revelatory experience. Readers naturally expect the culminating event to be Joseph’s First Vision. However, in the second installment, published in February 1835, Oliver takes an unexpected turn.

The Apparent Discontinuity in the Second Installment

In the February 1835 installment, Oliver abruptly “corrects” Joseph’s age from fourteen to seventeen and proceeds to describe the visit of the angel Moroni rather than the First Vision. He does not narrate the vision of the Father and the Son explicitly, creating the impression—at least for modern readers unfamiliar with the broader documentary record—that Oliver either did not know of the First Vision or believed the Moroni visitation to be Joseph’s earliest divine encounter.

This narrative move has led some critics to argue that the First Vision was a later invention and that Joseph initially believed Moroni’s appearance was his first theophany. However, this interpretation collapses under close examination of both Oliver’s own language and the documentary evidence available at the time he was writing.

Evidence That Oliver Knew of the First Vision

By 1834, Joseph Smith had already recorded an account of his First Vision in his 1832 history, in which he explicitly stated that he “saw the Lord.” There is substantial evidence that Oliver Cowdery had access to this document while preparing his history. Not only was Oliver serving as Church historian at the time, but there are also striking verbal and thematic correlations between Joseph’s 1832 account, Oliver’s 1834–1835 history, and Joseph’s 1835 journal entry describing the same events.

Rather than being ignorant of the First Vision, Oliver appears to have assumed its reality and authority—so much so that he felt no need to retell it in detail. Instead, he refers to it obliquely before continuing his narrative with Moroni’s visit.

“If a Supreme Being Did Exist”: What Oliver Actually Meant

The most frequently misunderstood statement in Oliver’s February 1835 installment occurs when he minimizes the earlier religious excitement and writes that Joseph sought:

a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him.

This sentence is often cited as evidence that Joseph doubted the existence of God prior to 1823. However, the grammatical structure and narrative framing show that Oliver is referring retrospectively to Joseph’s earlier state of concern, not his condition at age seventeen. The “religious excitement” is explicitly described as a past experience, tied to Joseph’s youth and spiritual anxiety, not as his settled worldview.

Immediately following this statement, Oliver affirms that Joseph’s seeking had already been answered. He writes:

This, most assuredly, was correct—it was right. The Lord has said, long since… that for him who knocks it shall be opened.

The phrase “long since” signals that the divine response occurred prior to the events Oliver is about to describe—namely, the visit of Moroni. In other words, Oliver is assuring readers that Joseph’s earlier plea for divine confirmation had already been answered, even though Oliver does not recount the vision explicitly.

An Intentional Narrative Shift, Not a Denial

Oliver Cowdery’s decision to move directly to Moroni’s visit after alluding to Joseph’s earlier divine encounter appears to be a stylistic and narrative choice, not a theological one. The second installment functions as a transition from Joseph’s preparatory spiritual experiences to the beginning of his prophetic commission tied to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Far from denying the First Vision, Oliver signals its reality while choosing to focus on subsequent events. His language affirms that something decisive and correct had already taken place in Joseph’s life—a divine response consistent with Joseph Smith’s own accounts.

Oliver Cowdery did not claim that Joseph Smith lacked belief in a Supreme Being until 1823, nor did he deny or replace the First Vision with Moroni’s appearance. When read carefully, Oliver’s history presupposes Joseph’s earlier encounter with God and reflects familiarity with Joseph’s 1832 account. The much-discussed phrase “if a Supreme being did exist” describes Joseph’s earlier religious questioning, not his final understanding.

Rather than undermining Joseph Smith’s First Vision, Oliver Cowdery’s history quietly affirms it—demonstrating that by the mid-1830s, the experience was known, authoritative, and foundational, even when not retold in full detail.

Were All the Churches False or Not?

One of the most persistent criticisms of Joseph Smith’s First Vision accounts is the claim that he had already concluded—before going to the grove to pray—that all churches were false. According to this argument, statements in Joseph’s earliest account (1832) indicate that he had already determined that “there was no society or denomination” built upon the New Testament. This, critics argue, contradicts later accounts in which Joseph expresses uncertainty about which church was true and even surprise upon being told by God to join none of them.

A careful examination of the historical record shows that this criticism rests on a false dilemma. Joseph Smith did not enter the grove having definitively decided that all churches everywhere were false. Rather, the evidence consistently portrays a young seeker who had become deeply disillusioned with the denominations known to him, yet remained uncertain about his duty and still hoped that God would identify the true path.

The Claim of Contradiction

Critics typically point to an apparent tension between two sets of statements:

• 1832 account: Joseph states that through scripture study he learned that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.”
• 1835 and 1838 accounts: Joseph repeatedly says that he “knew not who was right or who was wrong” and that his object in praying was to know “which of all the sects was right.”

From this contrast, critics argue that Joseph had already concluded that all churches were false in 1832 but later revised his story to portray himself as uncertain in order to heighten the drama or doctrinal implications of the First Vision.

This conclusion, however, misunderstands both the scope of Joseph’s early conclusions and the language he used to describe them.

What Joseph Smith Actually Concluded Before Praying

The 1832 account explains how Joseph reached his preliminary conclusions. From roughly age twelve onward, he studied the Bible and compared it to what he observed among the Christian denominations in his area. His conclusions were based on his “intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations,” not on abstract knowledge of Christianity worldwide.

When Joseph wrote that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ,” the context suggests a judgment about the denominations with which he was familiar, not a settled conclusion about every church on earth. This reading is reinforced by contemporaneous evidence. An 1832 newspaper report stated that Joseph “had not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them, and being in doubt what his duty was, he had recourse to prayer.”

In other words, Joseph’s scripture study had led him to doubt the adequacy of the denominations he knew—but not to certainty about what he should do instead. His conclusions intensified his confusion rather than resolved it.

Doubt and Uncertainty in the Later Accounts

This same uncertainty appears consistently in Joseph’s later accounts. In his 1835 diary entry, he wrote that he “knew not who was right or who was wrong” and felt it was “of the first importance” to determine the truth because of the eternal consequences involved. In the 1838 account, he explained that he was too young and inexperienced “to come to any certain conclusion who was right, and who was wrong,” despite his growing concerns about religious corruption.

This is not a retreat from an earlier certainty but an acknowledgment that Joseph’s personal conclusions were insufficient. The fact that he had already identified serious doctrinal problems did not give him confidence to act decisively. Instead, it convinced him that only divine revelation could settle the matter.

“Never Entered Into My Heart”: A Question of Meaning

One frequently cited objection focuses on Joseph Smith–History 1:18–19, where Joseph says that it “had never entered into my heart” that all churches were wrong, even though earlier he had asked whether “they were all wrong together.” At face value, this appears contradictory.

However, the phrase “entered into my heart” carries a specific meaning in Joseph’s religious vocabulary. Joseph used similar language elsewhere to describe moments of spiritual certainty rather than mere intellectual consideration. Something could pass through the mind without being fully accepted or internalized at the level of conviction.

Thus, Joseph could consider the possibility that the local denominations were all in error without emotionally or spiritually accepting the idea that no true church existed anywhere. Indeed, a draft history recorded by scribe Howard Coray clarifies this point by stating that Joseph “supposed that one of them were so”—that is, he still believed that at least one sect might be right, even if he had doubts.

The Scope of Joseph’s Question: Local or Universal?

Another key insight comes from reading Joseph Smith–History 1:10–18 as a continuous thought rather than isolated verses. In the passages immediately preceding Joseph’s famous question, he specifically names the Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists as the denominations contending around him. His question—“Who of all these parties are right?”—naturally refers back to those groups.

Read this way, Joseph was asking whether the prominent denominations in his area were correct—or whether they were all mistaken—not whether Christianity itself had entirely vanished from the earth. If so, the later instruction to “join none of them” because all were wrong—apparently without geographical or denominational limitation—could well have been surprising and spiritually jarring.

Orson Pratt and the Broader Religious World

Orson Pratt’s 1840 account further undermines the idea that Joseph had already settled the question. Pratt reports that Joseph reflected on the existence of “many hundreds of different denominations” worldwide and wondered whether any of them constituted the Church of Christ. This expansive view makes little sense if Joseph had already concluded that all churches everywhere were false. Instead, it portrays a young man hoping—however uncertainly—that somewhere among the many sects was the truth.

The historical evidence does not support the claim that Joseph Smith definitively concluded before the First Vision that all churches were false. Rather, it shows that he became increasingly aware of doctrinal corruption and religious division among the denominations he knew, which deepened his uncertainty and led him to seek divine guidance.

Joseph’s scripture study created a crisis, not a resolution. He doubted the churches around him, questioned the integrity of their teachings, and mourned the spiritual condition of the world—but he did not claim the authority or certainty to declare universal apostasy on his own. That determination, according to all accounts, came only through revelation.

Thus, far from undermining the First Vision narratives, the apparent tension between the accounts reflects a realistic process of religious searching: growing doubt, unresolved questions, and the decision to seek answers from God rather than from human judgment alone.

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

First Vision | Alleged Contradictions

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unmasked/Chapter 3

Critics have routinely asserted that Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision contain contradictions. This page gathers all the alleged "contradictions" and clarifies each, showing that Joseph Smith's accounts can easily be harmonized. Critics have challenged the First Vision on other grounds. They argue that there are embellishments and that there are historical anachronisms in the accounts. If you do not find what you're looking for on this page, be sure to visit those two pages that address embellishments or historical anachronisms.

---

One or Two Personages?

Joseph Smith wrote several accounts of the First Vision. In his earliest written account from 1832, he speaks clearly about seeing “the Lord.” In later accounts, especially those from 1835 and 1838, he says that he saw two personages—God the Father and Jesus Christ. Some people claim this means Joseph changed his story. A closer look shows there are good reasons for the difference.

1. The 1832 Account Does Not Leave God the Father Out

Even though Joseph does not clearly describe God the Father appearing in the 1832 account, he still refers to Him. At the start of the history, Joseph says that the First Vision was when he was “receiving the testimony from on high.” In Joseph’s later accounts, that “testimony” is when God the Father introduces Jesus Christ and tells Joseph who He is.

In the Bible and other scripture, a voice that comes “from heaven” or “from on high” usually means God the Father. Joseph used this same kind of language both before and after 1832. Because of this, many scholars believe Joseph understood the voice “from on high” to be the Father, even if he did not describe seeing Him clearly in that part of the story.

There is also a line in the 1832 account that says, “the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.” Some readers think this could mean two beings—one who opens the heavens and another who appears.

2. Scripture Often Describes Visions This Way

Joseph’s way of writing in 1832 matches how visions are described in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. In the Book of Mormon, Lehi sees God on His throne, but Jesus Christ is the one who comes down and speaks to him. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul describes seeing Jesus Christ in a vision, but he does not say he saw God the Father.

Joseph appears to have modeled part of his 1832 account after Paul’s experience. Since Paul focused on Christ and not the Father, Joseph may have done the same in his first written telling.

3. The 1832 Account Focuses on Jesus Christ

In the 1832 account, the main message is that Joseph’s sins were forgiven. In later accounts, Jesus Christ is the one who delivers that message after the Father introduces Him. This suggests that Joseph focused on Jesus in 1832 because Jesus was the one speaking to him and forgiving his sins. The account is centered on what mattered most to Joseph at that moment.

4. Writing Was Harder for Joseph Than Speaking

Joseph wrote the 1832 account himself, and it was the first time he tried to write his life story. Later accounts were mostly spoken and written down by others. Joseph once said that writing felt limiting and difficult for him. Because of this, the 1832 account is shorter and less detailed. As time went on, Joseph became better at explaining what happened and used clearer language.

5. The Accounts Are More Alike Than Different

Three of Joseph’s four main accounts clearly say that two personages appeared. The 1832 account can still be read in a way that fits with the others. The differences mostly come from what Joseph chose to emphasize, not from changing what he experienced.

Fire or Light?

Critics sometimes argue that Joseph Smith contradicted himself by saying that a “pillar of fire” appeared in some accounts of the First Vision and a “pillar of light” in others. A closer look at scripture, language, and Joseph’s own explanations shows that this difference is not a real contradiction.

First, in the Bible and other scriptures, fire and light are often used to describe the same divine presence. God appears to Moses in a burning bush that gives light but does not burn the bush (Exodus 3). The Lord leads Israel with a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day (Exodus 13:21), showing that fire can function as a source of light. Heavenly beings are also described as shining, glowing, or appearing “like fire.” Because of this, describing a divine manifestation as either “fire” or “light” fits well within biblical language.

Second, Joseph’s own descriptions connect fire and light, rather than treating them as opposites. In the 1832 account, he says he saw a “pillar of fire, light above the brightness of the sun at noon day.” This wording already blends the two ideas. Joseph appears to be using familiar biblical imagery to describe something intensely bright and powerful, not trying to give a scientific description of its physical makeup.

Third, different words can describe the same experience, especially when someone is trying to put an extraordinary event into ordinary language. A blazing light can look like fire. Fire itself gives off light. When Joseph told or wrote about his experience in different settings and for different audiences, he used different words that pointed to the same reality—a brilliant, heavenly manifestation coming from God.

Fourth, Joseph’s later accounts aim for clarity, not correction. As he retold the story over time, he often chose words that would help listeners better understand what he saw. “Light” may have been clearer and less confusing than “fire” for later audiences, especially since the pillar did not burn anything. This is the same way people today might describe the same event differently depending on context, without contradicting themselves.

In short, the use of “pillar of fire” in one account and “pillar of light” in another reflects biblical style, natural language variation, and growing clarity, not a contradiction. Both expressions describe the same overwhelming divine glory and are completely consistent with each other and with scripture.

The Lord or an Angel?

Critics have occasionally asserted that early Latter-day Saint sources understood Joseph Smith’s First Vision to involve only an angel rather than God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is based on selective quotations from early leaders, secondary retellings, and the use of the term angel in some historical contexts. Joseph Smith’s own early accounts also contribute to the confusion. In his 1835 journal, Joseph referred to his youthful experiences as involving the “first visitation of angels” and stated that “many angels” were present. Importantly, the same account also explicitly describes the appearance of two personages, one of whom testified that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. A careful examination of the primary sources, however, shows that these references do not reflect a doctrinal misunderstanding of the First Vision, but instead arise from differences in terminology, abbreviated retellings, and occasional conflation of distinct visionary events.

Oliver Cowdery

Oliver Cowdery wrote an early history of Joseph Smith in 1834–1835 for a Church newspaper called the Messenger and Advocate. Critics often point to this account to claim that Cowdery believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. A closer and simpler reading of Cowdery’s writing shows that this conclusion goes beyond what Cowdery actually said.

In his account, Cowdery explained that Joseph Smith was confused by the many churches around him and wanted to know whether God really existed. Joseph prayed, and an angel appeared and told him that his sins were forgiven. Cowdery then moved directly into a story that closely matches later accounts of the angel Moroni and the gold plates. Because Cowdery did not clearly separate these events, some readers assume he believed there was only one vision.

However, Cowdery’s goal was not to give a detailed timeline of every vision Joseph experienced. He was writing a brief introduction to Joseph Smith’s calling as a prophet for readers who already believed Joseph was inspired by God. To keep the story simple, Cowdery combined Joseph’s early spiritual experiences into one shortened account focused on forgiveness and calling.

Cowdery even corrected himself in a later issue after realizing he had listed the wrong age for Joseph. This shows that the history was informal and not meant to be a carefully edited record. At no point did Cowdery say that Joseph had only one vision, nor did he deny later accounts that describe God the Father and Jesus Christ appearing to Joseph.

Cowdery’s writing also fits well with Joseph Smith’s own 1832 account, which focused more on Joseph seeking forgiveness than on explaining exactly who appeared to him. At the time, people often used the word angel in a general way to describe messages from heaven.

There is no evidence that Oliver Cowdery rejected or misunderstood the First Vision. His use of the word angel reflects a short, simplified retelling of Joseph Smith’s early experiences, not a different belief about what Joseph actually saw.

Brigham Young

Critics sometimes claim that Brigham Young believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is usually based on a short quotation taken from one of Young’s sermons, where he said, “The Lord did not come… but He did send His angel.” When read by itself, this line can sound like Brigham Young was denying the First Vision as it is taught today. However, reading the full sermon shows that this interpretation is incorrect:

The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him. (Journal of Discourses 2:170-171)

In the full statement, Brigham Young was not saying that the Lord never came to Joseph Smith. Instead, he was explaining how the Lord chose to reveal Himself. Young specifically said that the Lord did not come “with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory.” In other words, God did not appear with overwhelming display, grandeur, or force. Instead, He worked through humble means that matched Joseph Smith’s situation and character.

Brigham Young then explained that the Lord “did send His angel” to Joseph Smith. Importantly, the sentence continues by saying that the Lord informed Joseph that he should not join any of the religious sects because they were all wrong. Grammatically and logically, Brigham Young is describing the angel as the messenger, while the message itself comes from the Lord. This fits well with how divine communication is described throughout the Bible, where God often teaches or commands through angels.

It is also important to remember that Joseph Smith experienced multiple angelic visitations, especially from the angel Moroni. Brigham Young frequently spoke in broad, summarized language about Joseph’s early calling, often blending different events together to make a general point about divine authority rather than to give a detailed history lesson. His sermon was focused on showing that God chose a humble young man and guided him step by step, not on listing every vision in precise order.

There is strong evidence elsewhere that Brigham Young accepted Joseph Smith’s account of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ. He taught openly that God the Father and the Son were separate beings and fully supported Joseph Smith’s prophetic testimony. The selective use of one sentence from a longer sermon does not reflect Young’s overall beliefs.

When read in full and in context, Brigham Young’s words do not show confusion or disagreement about the First Vision. Instead, they show his effort to explain that God did not appear with dramatic display, but worked through angels and personal revelation to call Joseph Smith in a quiet and humble way.

Lucy Mack Smith

Some critics claim that Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, said his First Vision was only of an angel — and not of God the Father and Jesus Christ. This idea usually comes from a letter she wrote in January 1831. However, when her words are read carefully and in context, it is clear that she was not trying to describe the First Vision itself, and she did not deny that Joseph saw God and Christ. Lucy’s letter was not written to explain every vision Joseph had. Instead, she wrote it to introduce the Book of Mormon to her siblings and explain how that book came forth. In that letter, she quoted language that closely matches a passage in the Church’s Articles and Covenants (Doctrine and Covenants 20:5–8) — language that refers to God ministering to Joseph by an angel who gave him commandments and assistance to translate the plates.

Critics sometimes point to this and say Lucy was referring to the First Vision. But her letter does not say that the visit of the angel was Joseph’s first spiritual experience, nor does it suggest that he only saw an angel instead of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Instead, her wording reflects the common devotional style and biblical language of the time — where an angel is described as a messenger of God who brings instruction or revelation.

In her letter, Lucy actually echoes Doctrine & Covenants 20, received in 1830, that already assumes the First Vision had taken place and that Joseph had received a mission from the Lord. The letter closely paraphrases that text.

• D&C 20:5-8 (April 1830)

(verse 5) "After it was truly manifested unto this first elder [i.e., Joseph Smith] that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world; (verse 6) But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness; (verse 7) And gave unto him commandments which inspired him; (verse 8) And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon."(D&C 20꞉5-8

Compare this with Mother Smith's letter:

• LUCY'S LETTER (January 1831)

"Joseph, after repenting of his sins and humbling himself before God, was visited by an holy angel whose countenance was as lightning and whose garments were white above all whiteness, who gave unto him commandments which inspired him from on high; and who gave unto him, by the means of which was before prepared, that he should translate this book."

Compare both of the above sources with the Prophet's 1832 First Vision narrative:

• FIRST VISION ACCOUNT (September–November 1832)

"I felt to mourn for my own sins....[The Lord said during the First Vision,] 'thy sins are forgiven thee'....after many days I fell into transgression and sinned in many things....I called again upon the Lord and he shewed unto me a heavenly vision for behold an angel of the Lord came and stood before me....the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book therefore I commenced translating the characters."

Critics also fail to point out that almost exactly two months before Lucy Mack Smith wrote her letter, four Latter-day Saint missionaries (Oliver Cowdery, Orson Pratt, Peter Whitmer Jr. and Ziba Peterson) were publicly teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God "personally" and had received a commission from Him to preach true religion. It is specifically stated in the newspaper article that records this information that the missionaries made their comments about 1 November 1830 - shortly after the Church was formally organized. Some critics who do acknowledge this newspaper article attempt to dismiss it by calling it a "vague" reference, despite the clear wording that the missionaries taught that Joseph "had seen God frequently and personally."

Although one critic of the Church indicates that the letter was “unpublished until 1906”, he does not indicate where, or by whom. First published by Ben E. Rich, President of the Southern States Mission, the letter has been long available to interested students of Latter-day Saint history.

It should be noted that the Lucy Mack Smith letter was not even available for publication until just shortly before it appeared in print because it was in a descendant's possession. The introduction to the letter published in the Elders' Journal states: "The following very interesting and earnest gospel letter written by Lucy Mack Smith, mother of the Prophet Joseph, to her brother, Solomon Mack and his wife, was presented to President Joseph F. Smith a few weeks ago by Mrs. Candace Mack Barker, of Keene, N[ew] H[ampshire], a grand-daughter of Solomon Mack, to whom the letter is addressed. Mrs. Barker stated that it was her desire to place the letter in the hands of those who would appreciate its contents and preserve it as she felt it properly deserved." The idea that Lucy Mack was trying to hide a First Vision story is not supported by the historical record.

In short, Lucy Mack Smith’s 1831 letter does not say that Joseph’s First Vision was of an angel instead of God and Christ. Instead, she was summarizing part of the early Church’s understanding of how revelation came to Joseph — in this case, through an angelic messenger connected with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon — and she did not intend to give a full history of every heavenly manifestation Joseph experienced.

John Taylor

Some critics point to a statement by John Taylor in an 1879 sermon where he referred to Joseph Smith asking an angel which church was right. They claim this shows that Taylor was confused about the First Vision. While the quotation itself is accurate, it does not show confusion when it is placed in its full historical setting.

“…just as it was when the prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right. What, none of them? No. we will not stop to argue that question; the angel merely told him to join none of them that none of them were right.” (Journal of Discourses vol. 20, p. 167)

John Taylor was deeply familiar with the First Vision account. In fact, he served as the editor of the Church’s newspaper, Times and Seasons, in 1842–1843. During that time, he oversaw the publication of Joseph Smith’s history, which included the clear account of the First Vision describing the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ. It is not reasonable to believe that Taylor could publish this material without understanding or accepting it.

Taylor also had direct involvement with the Pearl of Great Price. The First Vision account was included in the Pearl of Great Price when the Pearl of Great Price was first published in 1851, and John Taylor approved a new American edition in 1878—only one year before the sermon critics quote. This shows that he was well aware of the official First Vision narrative.

On October 7th, 1878, nearly a year and a half before his 1879 sermon, he wrote a letter in behalf of the Quorum of the Twelve commenting upon a book by Edward W. Tullidge entitled Life of Joseph Smith. In that letter, he wrote:

God the Father and Jesus, with the ancient apostles, prophets, patriarchs and men of God have revealed to Joseph Smith principles on which hang the destinies of the world

Even more telling is that on the same day as the 1879 sermon where Taylor used the word angel, he also spoke of the Father, the Son, and Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith:

When Jesus sent forth his servants formerly he sent them to preach this Gospel. When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith, he had a priesthood conferred upon him which he conferred upon others for the purpose of manifesting the laws of life, the Gospel of the Son of God, by direct authority, that light and truth might be spread forth among all nations. (Journal of Discourses 20:257)

This shows that Taylor was not denying or forgetting the First Vision. Instead, he was speaking in a brief and informal way during part of his remarks and then referring more fully to Joseph’s experiences elsewhere.

So why did John Taylor use the word angel at all? The most likely explanation is that he was either speaking generally about divine messengers or using biblical language, where heavenly beings are sometimes called angels even when they act with God’s authority. In the Bible, for example, God Himself is sometimes called an “angel” because the word means messenger.

When all of John Taylor’s writings and sermons are considered together, it becomes clear that he fully understood and taught that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. The single reference to an angel does not reflect confusion, but rather a brief or symbolic use of language taken out of context.

Orson Pratt

Some critics claim that Orson Pratt believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is usually based on a short quote from an 1869 sermon where Pratt said that “God had sent an angel” to Joseph Smith:

“By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him;… This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)

When this short quote is read by itself, it can sound like Pratt misunderstood the First Vision. But reading the full sermon shows that this is not true. In the same sermon, Orson Pratt clearly explained what Joseph Smith said he saw.

By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him; that through his faith, prayers, and sincere repentance he had beheld a supernatural vision, that he had seen a pillar of fire descend from Heaven, and saw two glorious personages clothed upon with this pillar of fire, whose countenance shone like the sun at noonday; that he heard one of these personages say, pointing to the other, ‘This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.’ This occurred before this young man was fifteen years of age; and it was a startling announcement to make in the midst of a generation so completely given up to the traditions of their fathers; and when this was proclaimed by this young, unlettered boy to the priests and the religious societies in the State of New York, they laughed him to scorn. ‘What!’ said they, “visions and revelations in our day! God speaking to men in our day!” They looked upon him as deluded; they pointed the finger of scorn at him and warned their congregations against him. ‘The canon of Scripture is closed up; no more communications are to be expected from Heaven. The ancients saw heavenly visions and personages; they heard the voice of the Lord; they were inspired by the Holy Ghost to receive revelations, but behold no such thing is to be given to man in our day, neither has there been for many generations past.’ This was the style of the remarks made by religionists forty years ago. This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)

Pratt taught that Joseph saw a pillar of fire come down from heaven and that he saw two glorious personages inside that light. He described their faces shining like the sun and said that Joseph heard one of them speak while pointing to the other and saying, “This is my Beloved Son, hear ye him.” This is a clear and accurate description of the First Vision as Joseph Smith later recorded it.

Pratt’s use of the word angel at the beginning of the sermon does not replace or contradict this description. Instead, Pratt was summarizing Joseph’s message to the world in simple terms before explaining the details. In the 1800s, Church leaders often used the word angel to mean a messenger sent by God, especially when speaking to audiences who were unfamiliar with Latter-day Saint beliefs. At the end of the sermon, Pratt also spoke about Joseph Smith being visited “four years afterwards” by another angel. This clearly refers to the visit of the angel Moroni, showing that Pratt understood Joseph Smith had more than one heavenly experience and that these events were separate.

When the full sermon is read, it is clear that Orson Pratt knew and taught that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. The claim that Pratt was confused comes from quoting only a small part of his words and leaving out the section where he gives a detailed and correct explanation of the vision.

Wilford Woodruff

Wilford Woodruff is claimed to have said in an 1855 sermon that the Church had been established in the last days only by "the ministering of an holy angel", and not by the Father and the Son. The following text is the one used by critics of the Church to try and make it look like Apostle Wilford Woodruff taught something other than the traditional storyline of the First Vision.

"That same organization and gospel that Christ died for...is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy angel from God...The angel taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world...He told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of His kingdom in the world"

An examination of the original text of the sermon in question reveals that Wilford Woodruff's words are being taken out of context by critics. The bolded words below show which sections of the paragraph have been selected by detractors to try and rewrite history.

"The gospel has gone forth in our day in its true glory, power, order, and light, as it always did when God had a people among men that He acknowledged. That same organization and gospel that Christ died for, and the Apostles spilled their blood to vindicate, is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy ANGEL from God, out of heaven, who held converse with man, and revealed unto him the darkness that enveloped the world, and unfolded unto him the gross darkness that surrounded the nations, those scenes that should take place in this generation, and would follow each other in quick succession, even unto the coming of the Messiah. The ANGEL taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world; and THE LORD gave him commandments, and sealed upon him the Priesthood, and gave him power to administer the ordinances of the house of the Lord. HE told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of HIS kingdom in the world, that the people had turned away from HIS true order, changed the ordinances, and broken the everlasting covenant, and inherited lies and things wherein their was no profit. HE told him the time had come to lay the foundation for the establishment of the Kingdom of God among men for the last time, preparatory to the winding up scene" (emphasis added).

When critics break the above quotation into pieces in the manner that they have, they create an unrecognized problem for themselves. A careful reading of this material indicates that it was not the angel who told Joseph Smith that "the gospel was not among men"; it was the "the Lord" who provided this information (see the capitalized/italicized words above: ANGEL, THE LORD, HE, HIS). The anti-Mormons have, through their editing of the text, made it falsely appear as if the words of the angel and the Lord were one and the same. Woodruff's quote does not state that it was the angel who told Joseph Smith that "the gospel was not among men"; it was the "the Lord" who provided this information

The attempt to use Wilford Woodruff's words to obscure the details of Mormon history is a misguided one because the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that critics advocate. Elder Woodruff was in the second highest leadership quorum of the Church during the lifetime of Joseph Smith and never once did he mention that the Prophet told two different tales about the founding of the last gospel dispensation.

It is difficult to believe that Elder Wilford Woodruff did not have an accurate knowledge of the traditional First Vision story prior to his 1855 remarks since on 3 February 1842 he became the superintendent of the printing office in Nauvoo, Illinois where the Times and Seasons newspaper was published and remained there through at least 8 November 1843. These dates are significant because in-between them the Prophet Joseph Smith had two separate accounts of the First Vision printed on the pages of the Times and Seasons and so Elder Woodruff would have been the person who was ultimately responsible for their production and distribution.

• Times and Seasons 3 no. 9 (1 March 1842), 706–707. off-site GospeLink [Wentworth Letter First Vision account].
• Times and Seasons 3 no. 11 (1 April 1842), 748–749. off-site GospeLink [History of the Church official First Vision account].

It should also be noted that before Elder Woodruff made his 1855 remarks six other members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles published First Vision accounts: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852). It seems highly unlikely that Elder Woodruff would have remained unaware of these publications, which were made available to the public by his closest associates.

George A. Smith

Apostle George A. Smith said on two separate occasions that Joseph Smith's First Vision was of an "angel"—not of the Father and the Son. However, the argument that George A. Smith was simply not aware of a Father-and-Son First Vision account when he made his "angel" statements is nonsense since it can be shown from a documentary standpoint that he did indeed have prior knowledge of such a thing. An argument of ignorance is also untenable in light of the fact that Brother Smith's close associates in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had published orthodox recitals of the First Vision on nine different occasions long BEFORE he made his verbal missteps at the pulpit: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852).

This does not mean that Brother Smith was not aware of the Father and the Son appearing to the Prophet at the time that he made his anomalous remarks. The following timeline demonstrates that the Prophet's cousin was well aware of the official version of events. His out-of-place comments need to be evaluated from that perspective.

• 7 April 1854: Elder George A. Smith was appointed at General Conference to be the new Church Historian.

• 9 August 1855: Elder George A. Smith wrote to the editor of the Deseret News on 9 August 1855 and gave permission to publish a short Church history that was originally requested for inclusion in a non-Mormon publication, but which ultimately did not appear in print. When Elder Smith told the First Vision story in this history he said that Joseph Smith beheld "two glorious Beings" during the experience. The capitalization of the word "Beings" indicates that the two individuals were considered to be Deity. Elder Smith then went on to tell the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon which, he said, was instigated by an "angel" who was commissioned of God (Deseret News, vol. 5, no. 26, 5 September 1855, 2).

• 15 August 1855: The First Vision account as found in the Wentworth Letter (1 March 1842) was published in Salt Lake City in connection with the official History of the Church. This account speaks of "two glorious personages" and then later speaks of the single "angel" who was involved in revealing the existence of the Book of Mormon plates. Since Elder Smith was the Church Historian at this time he likely would have known about the content of this publication.

• 6 August 1862: Elder George A. Smith's short Church history (see 9 August 1855 above) was reprinted on the pages of the Deseret News. In this First Vision account Elder Smith referred to "two glorious Beings" and then later spoke of the single "angel" who was involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon

• 15 November 1864: In a discourse on historical matters, Elder George A. Smith quoted directly from the official First Vision account, which was first published in the Times and Seasons newspaper on 15 March 1842 and 1 April 1842. Elder Smith recited the line, “This is my Beloved Son, hear Him” – leaving no doubt that he knew the specific identities of the two "personages" who appeared to Joseph Smith during the First Vision event.

• 15 November 1868: President George A. Smith (now a counselor in the First Presidency) accurately related many First Vision story elements - as published in the Church’s official history - but mistakenly mixed them together with several accurate angel Moroni story elements - as published in the Church’s official history. He said:

1. Joseph Smith was 14 or 15 years old

2. There was a revival involving Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists

3. There was a scramble after the revival to secure converts

4. Unpleasant feelings were the result

5. Joseph Smith had attended those meetings

6. Joseph Smith prayed because of James 1:5

7. The Lord sent an angel to Joseph Smith in answer to his prayer

8. Joseph Smith asked the angel which church was right and the angel said they were all wrong

9. The vision was repeated several times and Joseph Smith was commanded to tell his father about it

10. Joseph Smith’s father told him to observe the instructions that were given to him.

• 20 June 1869: President George A. Smith mistakenly mixed together accurate First Vision story elements with accurate angel Moroni story elements. He said:

1. Some members of Joseph Smith’s family joined the Presbyterians

2. Joseph Smith reflected much on religion

3. Joseph Smith was astonished at the bad feelings manifested at the end of the reformation

4. Joseph Smith was led to pray because of James 1:5

5. Joseph Smith had a vision of a holy angel

6. Joseph Smith asked which of the denominations in the vicinity was right

7. Joseph Smith was told that they had all gone astray and wandered into darkness

8. Joseph Smith was instructed not to join any of them

9. Joseph Smith was told that God was about to restore the gospel in its simplicity and purity.

• 1869: President George A. Smith published a small pamphlet which contained the Wentworth Letter account of the First Vision.

• 20 November 1870: President George A. Smith accurately related several First Vision story elements at the pulpit. This time he did NOT mistakenly include any angel Moroni story elements in his narrative.

1. The Lord revealed Himself to Joseph Smith

2. Joseph Smith was puzzled by hearing learned men preach about different doctrines

3. Joseph Smith saw the learned men quarrel over converts

4. Joseph Smith prayed humbly, with faith, because of James 1:5

5. Joseph Smith asked the Lord which was the right way

6. The Lord showed Joseph Smith the right way.

The timeline shows that George A. Smith was accurate in relating First Vision details when he had a physical text to read from. The pattern that can be seen in the timeline above is that George A. Smith was accurate in relating First Vision details when he had a physical text to read from or was formally writing down historical matters; he was accurate on many points when he was talking extemporaneously; he corrected himself after delivering erroneous verbal remarks.

Orson Hyde

Orson Hyde said during a General Conference in 1854:"Some one may say, 'If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Saviour come himself to communicate this intelligence to the world?'" Was Orson Hyde unaware of the details of the Father and Son appearing to Joseph in the First Vision?

When Elder Orson Hyde was discoursing in General Conference on 6 April 1854 he was NOT speaking about the First Vision (a story he knew very well from previously published literature) - he was trying to teach the Latter-day Saints about "the grand harvest" which would take place during "the winding up scene" and the part that "angels" would have in it. The evidence suggests that Elder Hyde was utilizing section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants as the basis for some of his remarks about angels, NOT about the events that took place within the Sacred Grove.

The proper context of Elder Hyde’s remarks can be determined simply by examining his opening statement. There he makes it clear that because it was currently the season for sowing crops he wanted to discourse on some parable imagery found in the 13th chapter of the New Testament book of Matthew (verses 1–9, 36–43).

Elder Hyde specifically mentioned that the "angels" were the agency through which "this reaping dispensation was committed to the children of men" and that these heavenly beings held "the keys of this dispensation." With these words he may well have been referring to the episode recorded in section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants where angels tell Joseph Smith - "the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands" (v. 16). They also "committed the gospel of the dispensation of Abraham" to the Prophet (v. 12) and, furthermore, they "committed unto [him] the keys of the gathering" (v. 11) - [harvest imagery]. Elder Hyde said in his sermon that the angels brought the news that "the time of the end was drawing nigh" and, significantly, the last of the angels to appear in D&C 110 said, "the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors" (v. 16).

A summary of Elder Hyde’s comments shows that he did not intend to speak about the First Vision at all; he wanted to impress upon that Saints that the latter-day work of gathering (the figurative harvest imagery) was inaugurated by angels and they would also play a role in the figurative separation of the wheat and the tares.

• 15 June 1841:

When Orson Hyde was in London, England on a mission he wrote to the Prophet Joseph Smith and informed him: “I have written a book to publish in the German language, setting forth our doctrine and principles in as clear and concise a manner as I possibly could. After giving the history of the rise of the Church, in something the manner that Br[other] O[rson] Pratt did, I have written a snug little article upon every point of doctrine believed by the Saints.”

Elder Hyde is referring to Elder Pratt’s missionary tract - published in Scotland in 1840 - called An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, which contained the first known published, full-length description of the First Vision event. Elder Hyde’s pamphlet contained a recounting of the First Vision that was very similar to the one found in Elder Pratt’s pamphlet.

• 1842: Elder Hyde’s pamphlet was published in Frankfurt, Germany sometime in the year 1842. It was called Eine Stimme aus dem Schoose der Erde (A Cry from the Wilderness, A Voice from the Depths of the Earth). This was the first known foreign-language rendition of the First Vision story.

• 6 February 1851: Elder Lorenzo Snow wrote a letter to Elder Orson Hyde on 6 February 1851 from Geneva, Switzerland and informed him that his own missionary tract called “The Voice of Joseph” (written between 23 July 1850 and 6 September 1850) was circulating in both Italy and Switzerland.

From the above information it can be determined that before Orson Hyde made his 1854 remarks he was aware of at least three orthodox First Vision accounts produced by members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

1. Orson Pratt’s missionary tract [published in 1840],

2. his own missionary tract [written in 1841], and

3. Lorenzo Snow’s missionary tract [written in 1850].

It is high unlikely that Elder Hyde did not possess an accurate understanding of the First Vision story before the year 1854.

Heber C. Kimball

Critics quote a portion of a sermon delivered at the Salt Lake Tabernacle on November 8, 1857 by Heber C. Kimball, in which it appears that he denies that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith. Here is what the critics quote:

Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come himself and call, but he sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates. Did God come himself? No; he sent Moroni and told him there was a record,…Well, then Peter comes along. Why did not God come? He sent Peter, do you not see? Why did he not come along? Because he has agents to attend to his business, and he sits upon his throne and is established at head-quarters, and tells this man, ‘Go and do this;’ and it is behind the vail just as it is here. You have got to learn that.

The very same evidence that was used in the construction of the anti-Mormon charge about Heber C. Kimball can be used to topple it. Kimball's remarks about God not appearing cannot be legitimately applied to Joseph Smith's First Vision experience. This argument is a classic example of taking an isolated statement out of its proper context and drawing a false conclusion based upon faulty evidence. When the entire sermon of Heber C. Kimball is examined in detail, the anti-Mormon argument quickly falls apart. Here is the full quote:

If God confers gifts, and blessings, and promises, and glories, and immortality, and eternal lives, and you receive them and treasure them up, then our Father and our God has joy in that man. . . . Do you not see [that] God is not pleased with any man except those that receive the gifts, and treasure them up, and practice upon those gifts? And He gives those gifts, and confers them upon you, and will have us to practice upon them. Now, these principles to me are plain and simple.

Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come Himself and call, but He sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates. Did God come Himself? No: He sent Moroni and told him there was a record, and says he, "That record is [a] matter that pertains to the Lamanites, and it tells when their fathers came out of Jerusalem, and how they came, and all about it; and, says he, "If you will do as I tell you, I will confer a gift upon you." Well, he conferred it upon him, because Joseph said he would do as he told him. "I want you to go to work and take the Urim and Thummim, and translate this book, and have it published, that this nation may read it." Do you not see, by Joseph receiving the gift that was conferred upon him, you and I have that record?

Well, when this took place, Peter came along to him and gave power and authority, and, says he, "You go and baptize Oliver Cowdery, and then ordain him a priest." He did it, and do you not see his works were in exercise? Then Oliver, having authority, baptized Joseph and ordained him a priest. Do you not see the works, how they manifest themselves?

Well, then Peter comes along. Why did not God come? He sent Peter, do you not see? Why did He not come along? Because He has agents to attend to His business, and He sits upon His throne and is established at headquarters, and tells this man, 'Go and do this'; and it is behind the veil just as it is here."

From a careful reading of this text it can be concluded that Kimball was talking about (#1) the appearance of the angel Moroni in 1823 in connection with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and (#2) the appearance of the apostle Peter in 1829 in connection with the bestowal of the Melchizedek Priesthood. He was talking about two heavenly beings bestowing "gifts" upon Joseph Smith on two different occasions; he was saying that in these two instances God sent His agents to accomplish particular works. However, Heber C. Kimball said absolutely nothing in this statement about the First Vision which occurred in 1820.

It cannot be successfully argued that Heber C. Kimball was not aware of the First Vision story by this point in time either, since no less a person than President Brigham Young recorded in his journal that Brother Kimball was present with several other General Authorities about two and a half months earlier (13 August 1857) when they placed a copy of the Pearl of Great Price inside the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple. This volume contained the 1838 account of the First Vision which was published by the Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois in 1842. There were also several other publications placed inside the temple cornerstone which rehearsed the First Vision story. These included:

• Lorenzo Snow's The Voice of Joseph
• Various tracts from Orson Pratt
• Franklin D. Richards's Compendium
• John Jaques's Catechism for Children
• Millennial Star, vol. 14 supplement
• Millennial Star, vol. 3

Joseph’s Age at the Time of First Vision

When Latter-day Saints describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision, they commonly note that he was very young at the time—about fourteen years old. This understanding comes primarily from Joseph’s later, more formal accounts, but it is also supported by his earliest writings when those documents are read in their historical context.

The most familiar account of the First Vision is Joseph Smith’s 1838–39 history, now canonized as Joseph Smith–History in the Pearl of Great Price. In that narrative, Joseph explained that the vision occurred in the spring of 1820, when he was “an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age.” Since Joseph was born on December 23, 1805, he would have been 14 years old during the spring of 1820, turning fifteen later that year.

Joseph’s other firsthand retellings of the First Vision are consistent with this timeline. In his 1835 account, he said the experience happened when he was “about 14 years old.” In an 1842 summary prepared for publication, he likewise stated that he was “about fourteen years of age” when the event took place. Even in casual recollections to acquaintances, Joseph repeatedly described the First Vision as something that happened in his early teens.

The main question arises from Joseph’s earliest known account, written in 1832. In this document, Joseph (or his scribe) stated that the vision occurred while he was “in the sixteenth year of my age.” At first glance, some readers assume this must mean Joseph was fifteen or even sixteen years old, creating a potential conflict with his later accounts. However, this phrase requires careful historical interpretation.

In early nineteenth-century English usage, saying someone was “in their sixteenth year” did not mean they were sixteen years old. Rather, it meant they had begun the year leading toward their sixteenth birthday. In other words, a person entered their “sixteenth year” immediately after turning fifteen, just as an infant is said to be “in their first year” from birth, not at age one. This older way of reckoning age was common in Joseph Smith’s day and appears in other contemporary documents.

Additionally, the phrase in the 1832 manuscript appears to have been inserted between the lines, suggesting it may reflect later clarification rather than careful chronological precision. The 1832 account itself was not intended as a polished autobiography; instead, it was a private, spiritual narrative focused on Joseph’s sins, repentance, and forgiveness, not on exact dates.

In the 1832 account, Frederick G. Williams inserted the "in the 16th year of my age" above Joseph's text after Joseph had already written it. (See: "History, circa Summer 1832," The Joseph Smith Papers)

When Joseph’s accounts are considered together, they present a coherent picture. He consistently placed the First Vision in the spring of 1820 and consistently described himself as about fourteen years old at the time. The wording in the 1832 account fits comfortably within this framework once historical language and age-counting conventions are taken into account.

In short, the documentary evidence supports the traditional understanding: Joseph Smith was fourteen years old when he experienced the First Vision, a young teenager seeking divine guidance in a time of religious confusion.

Joseph’s Motivation for Seeking Guidance from God

The multiple accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision have long attracted both devotion and criticism. Among the most common objections is the claim that Joseph changed his stated reason for praying over time. Critics argue that his earliest account (1832) presents a desire for forgiveness of sins as his primary motivation, while later accounts—especially the 1838 narrative canonized in the Pearl of Great Price—emphasize a desire to know which church was true. According to this view, the differing emphases represent a contradiction and suggest that the First Vision story evolved over time.

A close reading of all the available evidence, however, shows that this conclusion rests on an oversimplified comparison of selective phrases rather than on the full substance of the documents. When the accounts are read carefully and in their historical and religious context, Joseph Smith’s motivations appear consistent rather than contradictory. From the beginning, he expressed two closely related concerns: a desire to be forgiven of sins and a desire to worship God correctly by affiliating with the true church.

The Core Claim of the Criticism

Critics typically contrast two statements:

• 1832 account: “I cried unto the Lord for mercy, for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy.”
• 1838 account: “My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join.”

From these statements alone, critics conclude that Joseph originally prayed only for forgiveness and later revised his story to include questions about church authority. This comparison, however, strips both texts of their surrounding explanations and ignores the broader religious assumptions of Joseph Smith’s world.

A Close Reading of the 1832 Account

The 1832 account, partly written in Joseph Smith’s own hand, devotes significant space to describing the spiritual journey that led him to prayer. Far from portraying a narrow concern with personal guilt alone, the account reveals a young man grappling with multiple, interconnected questions.

Between the ages of twelve and fifteen, Joseph became deeply concerned about “the welfare of [his] immortal soul.” His search of the scriptures led him to compare biblical Christianity with the behavior and teachings of the denominations around him. This comparison caused him to “marvel exceedingly” and grieve that those who professed religion did not live in a manner consistent with scripture. Joseph further concluded—based on both scripture study and personal observation—that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.” He mourned not only for his own sins, but also “for the sins of the world,” reflecting concern for widespread religious corruption, not merely individual failure.

Only after recounting all of these considerations does Joseph explain why he prayed: “When I considered all these things… therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy.” His prayer was a response to the cumulative weight of doctrinal confusion, perceived apostasy, concern for correct worship, and personal conviction of sin.

In other words, forgiveness of sins was not the sole motivation for prayer—it was part of a broader religious crisis.

Forgiveness of Sins and the “True Church” in Joseph’s Religious World

Understanding Joseph Smith’s motivations requires recognizing an important feature of early nineteenth-century American Christianity. As historian Christopher C. Jones has observed, Joseph’s accounts strongly resemble Methodist conversion narratives, in which forgiveness of sins and correct church affiliation were inseparable. In Joseph’s religious culture, one found forgiveness by joining the right church and adhering to correct doctrine.

Under this framework, asking God for forgiveness inherently involved asking God which church—and which teachings—were correct. The two concerns rode in tandem, not in competition. Thus, even if the 1832 account emphasizes repentance language, it does not exclude institutional or doctrinal concerns. On the contrary, the account explicitly laments the failure of existing denominations to embody New Testament Christianity.

Significantly, in the vision itself, Joseph is told not merely that his sins are forgiven, but that “the world lieth in sin” and that religious leaders “draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me,” echoing Matthew 15:8–9. This language points beyond personal forgiveness toward a general apostasy and the need for divine restoration.

Scriptural Allusions and the Broader Apostasy Theme

The 1832 account also draws on scriptural language that Joseph later revisited during his translation of the Bible—particularly in JST Psalm 14. That psalm laments the loss of truth in the last days, declaring that “none doeth good” because religious teachers have gone astray. Scholars such as Joseph Fielding McConkie, Matthew Brown, Don Bradley, and Walker Wright have noted that Joseph’s JST rendering of Psalm 14 closely parallels themes in the First Vision and may even have influenced the language of his early history.

These parallels reinforce the idea that Joseph’s concern was not simply moral failure among individuals, but doctrinal corruption among religious teachers and institutions. Under this reading, the 1832 account implicitly addresses the same “which church is true?” question that later accounts state more explicitly.

The Later Accounts: Emphasis Without Contradiction

Joseph Smith’s later narrations of the First Vision vary in detail depending on audience and purpose. The 1835 account includes both concerns explicitly: uncertainty about which religious system was right and the declaration that his sins were forgiven. The 1838 account foregrounds religious confusion and the question of church authority but still alludes to “many other things” said during the vision that are not recorded—leaving room for experiences, such as forgiveness, described elsewhere.

Similarly, third-party retellings by Orson Pratt (1840) and Orson Hyde (1842) combine both themes: preparation for a future state, concern for salvation, confusion among denominations, and assurance of divine favor.

Rather than showing a shift in motivation, these accounts show selective emphasis, shaped by context and audience. None of them deny either concern; each highlights different aspects of the same religious struggle.

The claim that Joseph Smith changed his motivation for seeking revelation does not survive careful scrutiny. Across all accounts, Joseph presents himself as a young man profoundly concerned with salvation—how to prepare for eternity, how to worship God correctly, and how to receive forgiveness of sins. In his worldview, these were not separate questions but variations on the same theme. Differences among the First Vision accounts reflect changes in emphasis, audience, and narrative purpose—not contradiction. When read in context and within the religious culture of Joseph Smith’s time, the accounts form a coherent and internally consistent explanation of why he went to the grove to pray in 1820.

Rather than depicting an evolving fabrication, the evidence shows a stable core story: Joseph Smith sought divine guidance because he believed his soul—and the religious world around him—were in need of correction that only God could provide.

Knowing if God Existed

A frequently repeated claim in critical discussions of early Latter-day Saint history is that Oliver Cowdery taught that Joseph Smith did not even know whether a “Supreme Being” existed prior to 1823, thereby implying ignorance of God before the visit of the angel Moroni. This claim is based on a selective and decontextualized reading of Oliver Cowdery’s Church history, published in installments in the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate beginning in late 1834. When read carefully and in full historical context, Oliver’s account does not deny Joseph Smith’s First Vision, nor does it suggest that Joseph was an atheist prior to Moroni’s visit. Instead, it reflects a complex narrative strategy, one that presupposes Joseph’s earlier divine encounter while choosing not to narrate it directly.

Oliver Cowdery’s 1834–1835 History

In December 1834, Oliver Cowdery began publishing a formal history of the Church in the Messenger and Advocate. In the first installment, Oliver accurately placed Joseph Smith at fourteen years of age during a period of intense religious excitement and revivalism. He described the surrounding sectarian contention and Joseph’s deep concern for his soul—an account that clearly parallels Joseph Smith’s own descriptions of the circumstances leading to the First Vision.

This initial installment builds narrative momentum toward a revelatory experience. Readers naturally expect the culminating event to be Joseph’s First Vision. However, in the second installment, published in February 1835, Oliver takes an unexpected turn.

The Apparent Discontinuity in the Second Installment

In the February 1835 installment, Oliver abruptly “corrects” Joseph’s age from fourteen to seventeen and proceeds to describe the visit of the angel Moroni rather than the First Vision. He does not narrate the vision of the Father and the Son explicitly, creating the impression—at least for modern readers unfamiliar with the broader documentary record—that Oliver either did not know of the First Vision or believed the Moroni visitation to be Joseph’s earliest divine encounter.

This narrative move has led some critics to argue that the First Vision was a later invention and that Joseph initially believed Moroni’s appearance was his first theophany. However, this interpretation collapses under close examination of both Oliver’s own language and the documentary evidence available at the time he was writing.

Evidence That Oliver Knew of the First Vision

By 1834, Joseph Smith had already recorded an account of his First Vision in his 1832 history, in which he explicitly stated that he “saw the Lord.” There is substantial evidence that Oliver Cowdery had access to this document while preparing his history. Not only was Oliver serving as Church historian at the time, but there are also striking verbal and thematic correlations between Joseph’s 1832 account, Oliver’s 1834–1835 history, and Joseph’s 1835 journal entry describing the same events.

Rather than being ignorant of the First Vision, Oliver appears to have assumed its reality and authority—so much so that he felt no need to retell it in detail. Instead, he refers to it obliquely before continuing his narrative with Moroni’s visit.

“If a Supreme Being Did Exist”: What Oliver Actually Meant

The most frequently misunderstood statement in Oliver’s February 1835 installment occurs when he minimizes the earlier religious excitement and writes that Joseph sought:

a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him.

This sentence is often cited as evidence that Joseph doubted the existence of God prior to 1823. However, the grammatical structure and narrative framing show that Oliver is referring retrospectively to Joseph’s earlier state of concern, not his condition at age seventeen. The “religious excitement” is explicitly described as a past experience, tied to Joseph’s youth and spiritual anxiety, not as his settled worldview.

Immediately following this statement, Oliver affirms that Joseph’s seeking had already been answered. He writes:

This, most assuredly, was correct—it was right. The Lord has said, long since… that for him who knocks it shall be opened.

The phrase “long since” signals that the divine response occurred prior to the events Oliver is about to describe—namely, the visit of Moroni. In other words, Oliver is assuring readers that Joseph’s earlier plea for divine confirmation had already been answered, even though Oliver does not recount the vision explicitly.

An Intentional Narrative Shift, Not a Denial

Oliver Cowdery’s decision to move directly to Moroni’s visit after alluding to Joseph’s earlier divine encounter appears to be a stylistic and narrative choice, not a theological one. The second installment functions as a transition from Joseph’s preparatory spiritual experiences to the beginning of his prophetic commission tied to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Far from denying the First Vision, Oliver signals its reality while choosing to focus on subsequent events. His language affirms that something decisive and correct had already taken place in Joseph’s life—a divine response consistent with Joseph Smith’s own accounts.

Oliver Cowdery did not claim that Joseph Smith lacked belief in a Supreme Being until 1823, nor did he deny or replace the First Vision with Moroni’s appearance. When read carefully, Oliver’s history presupposes Joseph’s earlier encounter with God and reflects familiarity with Joseph’s 1832 account. The much-discussed phrase “if a Supreme being did exist” describes Joseph’s earlier religious questioning, not his final understanding.

Rather than undermining Joseph Smith’s First Vision, Oliver Cowdery’s history quietly affirms it—demonstrating that by the mid-1830s, the experience was known, authoritative, and foundational, even when not retold in full detail.

Were All the Churches False or Not?

One of the most persistent criticisms of Joseph Smith’s First Vision accounts is the claim that he had already concluded—before going to the grove to pray—that all churches were false. According to this argument, statements in Joseph’s earliest account (1832) indicate that he had already determined that “there was no society or denomination” built upon the New Testament. This, critics argue, contradicts later accounts in which Joseph expresses uncertainty about which church was true and even surprise upon being told by God to join none of them.

A careful examination of the historical record shows that this criticism rests on a false dilemma. Joseph Smith did not enter the grove having definitively decided that all churches everywhere were false. Rather, the evidence consistently portrays a young seeker who had become deeply disillusioned with the denominations known to him, yet remained uncertain about his duty and still hoped that God would identify the true path.

The Claim of Contradiction

Critics typically point to an apparent tension between two sets of statements:

• 1832 account: Joseph states that through scripture study he learned that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.”
• 1835 and 1838 accounts: Joseph repeatedly says that he “knew not who was right or who was wrong” and that his object in praying was to know “which of all the sects was right.”

From this contrast, critics argue that Joseph had already concluded that all churches were false in 1832 but later revised his story to portray himself as uncertain in order to heighten the drama or doctrinal implications of the First Vision.

This conclusion, however, misunderstands both the scope of Joseph’s early conclusions and the language he used to describe them.

What Joseph Smith Actually Concluded Before Praying

The 1832 account explains how Joseph reached his preliminary conclusions. From roughly age twelve onward, he studied the Bible and compared it to what he observed among the Christian denominations in his area. His conclusions were based on his “intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations,” not on abstract knowledge of Christianity worldwide.

When Joseph wrote that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ,” the context suggests a judgment about the denominations with which he was familiar, not a settled conclusion about every church on earth. This reading is reinforced by contemporaneous evidence. An 1832 newspaper report stated that Joseph “had not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them, and being in doubt what his duty was, he had recourse to prayer.”

In other words, Joseph’s scripture study had led him to doubt the adequacy of the denominations he knew—but not to certainty about what he should do instead. His conclusions intensified his confusion rather than resolved it.

Doubt and Uncertainty in the Later Accounts

This same uncertainty appears consistently in Joseph’s later accounts. In his 1835 diary entry, he wrote that he “knew not who was right or who was wrong” and felt it was “of the first importance” to determine the truth because of the eternal consequences involved. In the 1838 account, he explained that he was too young and inexperienced “to come to any certain conclusion who was right, and who was wrong,” despite his growing concerns about religious corruption.

This is not a retreat from an earlier certainty but an acknowledgment that Joseph’s personal conclusions were insufficient. The fact that he had already identified serious doctrinal problems did not give him confidence to act decisively. Instead, it convinced him that only divine revelation could settle the matter.

“Never Entered Into My Heart”: A Question of Meaning

One frequently cited objection focuses on Joseph Smith–History 1:18–19, where Joseph says that it “had never entered into my heart” that all churches were wrong, even though earlier he had asked whether “they were all wrong together.” At face value, this appears contradictory.

However, the phrase “entered into my heart” carries a specific meaning in Joseph’s religious vocabulary. Joseph used similar language elsewhere to describe moments of spiritual certainty rather than mere intellectual consideration. Something could pass through the mind without being fully accepted or internalized at the level of conviction.

Thus, Joseph could consider the possibility that the local denominations were all in error without emotionally or spiritually accepting the idea that no true church existed anywhere. Indeed, a draft history recorded by scribe Howard Coray clarifies this point by stating that Joseph “supposed that one of them were so”—that is, he still believed that at least one sect might be right, even if he had doubts.

The Scope of Joseph’s Question: Local or Universal?

Another key insight comes from reading Joseph Smith–History 1:10–18 as a continuous thought rather than isolated verses. In the passages immediately preceding Joseph’s famous question, he specifically names the Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists as the denominations contending around him. His question—“Who of all these parties are right?”—naturally refers back to those groups.

Read this way, Joseph was asking whether the prominent denominations in his area were correct—or whether they were all mistaken—not whether Christianity itself had entirely vanished from the earth. If so, the later instruction to “join none of them” because all were wrong—apparently without geographical or denominational limitation—could well have been surprising and spiritually jarring.

Orson Pratt and the Broader Religious World

Orson Pratt’s 1840 account further undermines the idea that Joseph had already settled the question. Pratt reports that Joseph reflected on the existence of “many hundreds of different denominations” worldwide and wondered whether any of them constituted the Church of Christ. This expansive view makes little sense if Joseph had already concluded that all churches everywhere were false. Instead, it portrays a young man hoping—however uncertainly—that somewhere among the many sects was the truth.

The historical evidence does not support the claim that Joseph Smith definitively concluded before the First Vision that all churches were false. Rather, it shows that he became increasingly aware of doctrinal corruption and religious division among the denominations he knew, which deepened his uncertainty and led him to seek divine guidance.

Joseph’s scripture study created a crisis, not a resolution. He doubted the churches around him, questioned the integrity of their teachings, and mourned the spiritual condition of the world—but he did not claim the authority or certainty to declare universal apostasy on his own. That determination, according to all accounts, came only through revelation.

Thus, far from undermining the First Vision narratives, the apparent tension between the accounts reflects a realistic process of religious searching: growing doubt, unresolved questions, and the decision to seek answers from God rather than from human judgment alone.

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

First Vision | Alleged Contradictions

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unmasked/Chapter 3

Critics have routinely asserted that Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision contain contradictions. This page gathers all the alleged "contradictions" and clarifies each, showing that Joseph Smith's accounts can easily be harmonized. Critics have challenged the First Vision on other grounds. They argue that there are embellishments and that there are historical anachronisms in the accounts. If you do not find what you're looking for on this page, be sure to visit those two pages that address embellishments or historical anachronisms.

---

One or Two Personages?

Joseph Smith wrote several accounts of the First Vision. In his earliest written account from 1832, he speaks clearly about seeing “the Lord.” In later accounts, especially those from 1835 and 1838, he says that he saw two personages—God the Father and Jesus Christ. Some people claim this means Joseph changed his story. A closer look shows there are good reasons for the difference.

1. The 1832 Account Does Not Leave God the Father Out

Even though Joseph does not clearly describe God the Father appearing in the 1832 account, he still refers to Him. At the start of the history, Joseph says that the First Vision was when he was “receiving the testimony from on high.” In Joseph’s later accounts, that “testimony” is when God the Father introduces Jesus Christ and tells Joseph who He is.

In the Bible and other scripture, a voice that comes “from heaven” or “from on high” usually means God the Father. Joseph used this same kind of language both before and after 1832. Because of this, many scholars believe Joseph understood the voice “from on high” to be the Father, even if he did not describe seeing Him clearly in that part of the story.

There is also a line in the 1832 account that says, “the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.” Some readers think this could mean two beings—one who opens the heavens and another who appears.

2. Scripture Often Describes Visions This Way

Joseph’s way of writing in 1832 matches how visions are described in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. In the Book of Mormon, Lehi sees God on His throne, but Jesus Christ is the one who comes down and speaks to him. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul describes seeing Jesus Christ in a vision, but he does not say he saw God the Father.

Joseph appears to have modeled part of his 1832 account after Paul’s experience. Since Paul focused on Christ and not the Father, Joseph may have done the same in his first written telling.

3. The 1832 Account Focuses on Jesus Christ

In the 1832 account, the main message is that Joseph’s sins were forgiven. In later accounts, Jesus Christ is the one who delivers that message after the Father introduces Him. This suggests that Joseph focused on Jesus in 1832 because Jesus was the one speaking to him and forgiving his sins. The account is centered on what mattered most to Joseph at that moment.

4. Writing Was Harder for Joseph Than Speaking

Joseph wrote the 1832 account himself, and it was the first time he tried to write his life story. Later accounts were mostly spoken and written down by others. Joseph once said that writing felt limiting and difficult for him. Because of this, the 1832 account is shorter and less detailed. As time went on, Joseph became better at explaining what happened and used clearer language.

5. The Accounts Are More Alike Than Different

Three of Joseph’s four main accounts clearly say that two personages appeared. The 1832 account can still be read in a way that fits with the others. The differences mostly come from what Joseph chose to emphasize, not from changing what he experienced.

Fire or Light?

Critics sometimes argue that Joseph Smith contradicted himself by saying that a “pillar of fire” appeared in some accounts of the First Vision and a “pillar of light” in others. A closer look at scripture, language, and Joseph’s own explanations shows that this difference is not a real contradiction.

First, in the Bible and other scriptures, fire and light are often used to describe the same divine presence. God appears to Moses in a burning bush that gives light but does not burn the bush (Exodus 3). The Lord leads Israel with a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day (Exodus 13:21), showing that fire can function as a source of light. Heavenly beings are also described as shining, glowing, or appearing “like fire.” Because of this, describing a divine manifestation as either “fire” or “light” fits well within biblical language.

Second, Joseph’s own descriptions connect fire and light, rather than treating them as opposites. In the 1832 account, he says he saw a “pillar of fire, light above the brightness of the sun at noon day.” This wording already blends the two ideas. Joseph appears to be using familiar biblical imagery to describe something intensely bright and powerful, not trying to give a scientific description of its physical makeup.

Third, different words can describe the same experience, especially when someone is trying to put an extraordinary event into ordinary language. A blazing light can look like fire. Fire itself gives off light. When Joseph told or wrote about his experience in different settings and for different audiences, he used different words that pointed to the same reality—a brilliant, heavenly manifestation coming from God.

Fourth, Joseph’s later accounts aim for clarity, not correction. As he retold the story over time, he often chose words that would help listeners better understand what he saw. “Light” may have been clearer and less confusing than “fire” for later audiences, especially since the pillar did not burn anything. This is the same way people today might describe the same event differently depending on context, without contradicting themselves.

In short, the use of “pillar of fire” in one account and “pillar of light” in another reflects biblical style, natural language variation, and growing clarity, not a contradiction. Both expressions describe the same overwhelming divine glory and are completely consistent with each other and with scripture.

The Lord or an Angel?

Critics have occasionally asserted that early Latter-day Saint sources understood Joseph Smith’s First Vision to involve only an angel rather than God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is based on selective quotations from early leaders, secondary retellings, and the use of the term angel in some historical contexts. Joseph Smith’s own early accounts also contribute to the confusion. In his 1835 journal, Joseph referred to his youthful experiences as involving the “first visitation of angels” and stated that “many angels” were present. Importantly, the same account also explicitly describes the appearance of two personages, one of whom testified that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. A careful examination of the primary sources, however, shows that these references do not reflect a doctrinal misunderstanding of the First Vision, but instead arise from differences in terminology, abbreviated retellings, and occasional conflation of distinct visionary events.

Oliver Cowdery

Oliver Cowdery wrote an early history of Joseph Smith in 1834–1835 for a Church newspaper called the Messenger and Advocate. Critics often point to this account to claim that Cowdery believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. A closer and simpler reading of Cowdery’s writing shows that this conclusion goes beyond what Cowdery actually said.

In his account, Cowdery explained that Joseph Smith was confused by the many churches around him and wanted to know whether God really existed. Joseph prayed, and an angel appeared and told him that his sins were forgiven. Cowdery then moved directly into a story that closely matches later accounts of the angel Moroni and the gold plates. Because Cowdery did not clearly separate these events, some readers assume he believed there was only one vision.

However, Cowdery’s goal was not to give a detailed timeline of every vision Joseph experienced. He was writing a brief introduction to Joseph Smith’s calling as a prophet for readers who already believed Joseph was inspired by God. To keep the story simple, Cowdery combined Joseph’s early spiritual experiences into one shortened account focused on forgiveness and calling.

Cowdery even corrected himself in a later issue after realizing he had listed the wrong age for Joseph. This shows that the history was informal and not meant to be a carefully edited record. At no point did Cowdery say that Joseph had only one vision, nor did he deny later accounts that describe God the Father and Jesus Christ appearing to Joseph.

Cowdery’s writing also fits well with Joseph Smith’s own 1832 account, which focused more on Joseph seeking forgiveness than on explaining exactly who appeared to him. At the time, people often used the word angel in a general way to describe messages from heaven.

There is no evidence that Oliver Cowdery rejected or misunderstood the First Vision. His use of the word angel reflects a short, simplified retelling of Joseph Smith’s early experiences, not a different belief about what Joseph actually saw.

Brigham Young

Critics sometimes claim that Brigham Young believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is usually based on a short quotation taken from one of Young’s sermons, where he said, “The Lord did not come… but He did send His angel.” When read by itself, this line can sound like Brigham Young was denying the First Vision as it is taught today. However, reading the full sermon shows that this interpretation is incorrect:

The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him. (Journal of Discourses 2:170-171)

In the full statement, Brigham Young was not saying that the Lord never came to Joseph Smith. Instead, he was explaining how the Lord chose to reveal Himself. Young specifically said that the Lord did not come “with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory.” In other words, God did not appear with overwhelming display, grandeur, or force. Instead, He worked through humble means that matched Joseph Smith’s situation and character.

Brigham Young then explained that the Lord “did send His angel” to Joseph Smith. Importantly, the sentence continues by saying that the Lord informed Joseph that he should not join any of the religious sects because they were all wrong. Grammatically and logically, Brigham Young is describing the angel as the messenger, while the message itself comes from the Lord. This fits well with how divine communication is described throughout the Bible, where God often teaches or commands through angels.

It is also important to remember that Joseph Smith experienced multiple angelic visitations, especially from the angel Moroni. Brigham Young frequently spoke in broad, summarized language about Joseph’s early calling, often blending different events together to make a general point about divine authority rather than to give a detailed history lesson. His sermon was focused on showing that God chose a humble young man and guided him step by step, not on listing every vision in precise order.

There is strong evidence elsewhere that Brigham Young accepted Joseph Smith’s account of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ. He taught openly that God the Father and the Son were separate beings and fully supported Joseph Smith’s prophetic testimony. The selective use of one sentence from a longer sermon does not reflect Young’s overall beliefs.

When read in full and in context, Brigham Young’s words do not show confusion or disagreement about the First Vision. Instead, they show his effort to explain that God did not appear with dramatic display, but worked through angels and personal revelation to call Joseph Smith in a quiet and humble way.

Lucy Mack Smith

Some critics claim that Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, said his First Vision was only of an angel — and not of God the Father and Jesus Christ. This idea usually comes from a letter she wrote in January 1831. However, when her words are read carefully and in context, it is clear that she was not trying to describe the First Vision itself, and she did not deny that Joseph saw God and Christ. Lucy’s letter was not written to explain every vision Joseph had. Instead, she wrote it to introduce the Book of Mormon to her siblings and explain how that book came forth. In that letter, she quoted language that closely matches a passage in the Church’s Articles and Covenants (Doctrine and Covenants 20:5–8) — language that refers to God ministering to Joseph by an angel who gave him commandments and assistance to translate the plates.

Critics sometimes point to this and say Lucy was referring to the First Vision. But her letter does not say that the visit of the angel was Joseph’s first spiritual experience, nor does it suggest that he only saw an angel instead of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Instead, her wording reflects the common devotional style and biblical language of the time — where an angel is described as a messenger of God who brings instruction or revelation.

In her letter, Lucy actually echoes Doctrine & Covenants 20, received in 1830, that already assumes the First Vision had taken place and that Joseph had received a mission from the Lord. The letter closely paraphrases that text.

• D&C 20:5-8 (April 1830)

(verse 5) "After it was truly manifested unto this first elder [i.e., Joseph Smith] that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world; (verse 6) But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness; (verse 7) And gave unto him commandments which inspired him; (verse 8) And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon."(D&C 20꞉5-8

Compare this with Mother Smith's letter:

• LUCY'S LETTER (January 1831)

"Joseph, after repenting of his sins and humbling himself before God, was visited by an holy angel whose countenance was as lightning and whose garments were white above all whiteness, who gave unto him commandments which inspired him from on high; and who gave unto him, by the means of which was before prepared, that he should translate this book."

Compare both of the above sources with the Prophet's 1832 First Vision narrative:

• FIRST VISION ACCOUNT (September–November 1832)

"I felt to mourn for my own sins....[The Lord said during the First Vision,] 'thy sins are forgiven thee'....after many days I fell into transgression and sinned in many things....I called again upon the Lord and he shewed unto me a heavenly vision for behold an angel of the Lord came and stood before me....the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book therefore I commenced translating the characters."

Critics also fail to point out that almost exactly two months before Lucy Mack Smith wrote her letter, four Latter-day Saint missionaries (Oliver Cowdery, Orson Pratt, Peter Whitmer Jr. and Ziba Peterson) were publicly teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God "personally" and had received a commission from Him to preach true religion. It is specifically stated in the newspaper article that records this information that the missionaries made their comments about 1 November 1830 - shortly after the Church was formally organized. Some critics who do acknowledge this newspaper article attempt to dismiss it by calling it a "vague" reference, despite the clear wording that the missionaries taught that Joseph "had seen God frequently and personally."

Although one critic of the Church indicates that the letter was “unpublished until 1906”, he does not indicate where, or by whom. First published by Ben E. Rich, President of the Southern States Mission, the letter has been long available to interested students of Latter-day Saint history.

It should be noted that the Lucy Mack Smith letter was not even available for publication until just shortly before it appeared in print because it was in a descendant's possession. The introduction to the letter published in the Elders' Journal states: "The following very interesting and earnest gospel letter written by Lucy Mack Smith, mother of the Prophet Joseph, to her brother, Solomon Mack and his wife, was presented to President Joseph F. Smith a few weeks ago by Mrs. Candace Mack Barker, of Keene, N[ew] H[ampshire], a grand-daughter of Solomon Mack, to whom the letter is addressed. Mrs. Barker stated that it was her desire to place the letter in the hands of those who would appreciate its contents and preserve it as she felt it properly deserved." The idea that Lucy Mack was trying to hide a First Vision story is not supported by the historical record.

In short, Lucy Mack Smith’s 1831 letter does not say that Joseph’s First Vision was of an angel instead of God and Christ. Instead, she was summarizing part of the early Church’s understanding of how revelation came to Joseph — in this case, through an angelic messenger connected with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon — and she did not intend to give a full history of every heavenly manifestation Joseph experienced.

John Taylor

Some critics point to a statement by John Taylor in an 1879 sermon where he referred to Joseph Smith asking an angel which church was right. They claim this shows that Taylor was confused about the First Vision. While the quotation itself is accurate, it does not show confusion when it is placed in its full historical setting.

“…just as it was when the prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right. What, none of them? No. we will not stop to argue that question; the angel merely told him to join none of them that none of them were right.” (Journal of Discourses vol. 20, p. 167)

John Taylor was deeply familiar with the First Vision account. In fact, he served as the editor of the Church’s newspaper, Times and Seasons, in 1842–1843. During that time, he oversaw the publication of Joseph Smith’s history, which included the clear account of the First Vision describing the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ. It is not reasonable to believe that Taylor could publish this material without understanding or accepting it.

Taylor also had direct involvement with the Pearl of Great Price. The First Vision account was included in the Pearl of Great Price when the Pearl of Great Price was first published in 1851, and John Taylor approved a new American edition in 1878—only one year before the sermon critics quote. This shows that he was well aware of the official First Vision narrative.

On October 7th, 1878, nearly a year and a half before his 1879 sermon, he wrote a letter in behalf of the Quorum of the Twelve commenting upon a book by Edward W. Tullidge entitled Life of Joseph Smith. In that letter, he wrote:

God the Father and Jesus, with the ancient apostles, prophets, patriarchs and men of God have revealed to Joseph Smith principles on which hang the destinies of the world

Even more telling is that on the same day as the 1879 sermon where Taylor used the word angel, he also spoke of the Father, the Son, and Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith:

When Jesus sent forth his servants formerly he sent them to preach this Gospel. When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith, he had a priesthood conferred upon him which he conferred upon others for the purpose of manifesting the laws of life, the Gospel of the Son of God, by direct authority, that light and truth might be spread forth among all nations. (Journal of Discourses 20:257)

This shows that Taylor was not denying or forgetting the First Vision. Instead, he was speaking in a brief and informal way during part of his remarks and then referring more fully to Joseph’s experiences elsewhere.

So why did John Taylor use the word angel at all? The most likely explanation is that he was either speaking generally about divine messengers or using biblical language, where heavenly beings are sometimes called angels even when they act with God’s authority. In the Bible, for example, God Himself is sometimes called an “angel” because the word means messenger.

When all of John Taylor’s writings and sermons are considered together, it becomes clear that he fully understood and taught that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. The single reference to an angel does not reflect confusion, but rather a brief or symbolic use of language taken out of context.

Orson Pratt

Some critics claim that Orson Pratt believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is usually based on a short quote from an 1869 sermon where Pratt said that “God had sent an angel” to Joseph Smith:

“By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him;… This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)

When this short quote is read by itself, it can sound like Pratt misunderstood the First Vision. But reading the full sermon shows that this is not true. In the same sermon, Orson Pratt clearly explained what Joseph Smith said he saw.

By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him; that through his faith, prayers, and sincere repentance he had beheld a supernatural vision, that he had seen a pillar of fire descend from Heaven, and saw two glorious personages clothed upon with this pillar of fire, whose countenance shone like the sun at noonday; that he heard one of these personages say, pointing to the other, ‘This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.’ This occurred before this young man was fifteen years of age; and it was a startling announcement to make in the midst of a generation so completely given up to the traditions of their fathers; and when this was proclaimed by this young, unlettered boy to the priests and the religious societies in the State of New York, they laughed him to scorn. ‘What!’ said they, “visions and revelations in our day! God speaking to men in our day!” They looked upon him as deluded; they pointed the finger of scorn at him and warned their congregations against him. ‘The canon of Scripture is closed up; no more communications are to be expected from Heaven. The ancients saw heavenly visions and personages; they heard the voice of the Lord; they were inspired by the Holy Ghost to receive revelations, but behold no such thing is to be given to man in our day, neither has there been for many generations past.’ This was the style of the remarks made by religionists forty years ago. This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)

Pratt taught that Joseph saw a pillar of fire come down from heaven and that he saw two glorious personages inside that light. He described their faces shining like the sun and said that Joseph heard one of them speak while pointing to the other and saying, “This is my Beloved Son, hear ye him.” This is a clear and accurate description of the First Vision as Joseph Smith later recorded it.

Pratt’s use of the word angel at the beginning of the sermon does not replace or contradict this description. Instead, Pratt was summarizing Joseph’s message to the world in simple terms before explaining the details. In the 1800s, Church leaders often used the word angel to mean a messenger sent by God, especially when speaking to audiences who were unfamiliar with Latter-day Saint beliefs. At the end of the sermon, Pratt also spoke about Joseph Smith being visited “four years afterwards” by another angel. This clearly refers to the visit of the angel Moroni, showing that Pratt understood Joseph Smith had more than one heavenly experience and that these events were separate.

When the full sermon is read, it is clear that Orson Pratt knew and taught that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. The claim that Pratt was confused comes from quoting only a small part of his words and leaving out the section where he gives a detailed and correct explanation of the vision.

Wilford Woodruff

Wilford Woodruff is claimed to have said in an 1855 sermon that the Church had been established in the last days only by "the ministering of an holy angel", and not by the Father and the Son. The following text is the one used by critics of the Church to try and make it look like Apostle Wilford Woodruff taught something other than the traditional storyline of the First Vision.

"That same organization and gospel that Christ died for...is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy angel from God...The angel taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world...He told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of His kingdom in the world"

An examination of the original text of the sermon in question reveals that Wilford Woodruff's words are being taken out of context by critics. The bolded words below show which sections of the paragraph have been selected by detractors to try and rewrite history.

"The gospel has gone forth in our day in its true glory, power, order, and light, as it always did when God had a people among men that He acknowledged. That same organization and gospel that Christ died for, and the Apostles spilled their blood to vindicate, is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy ANGEL from God, out of heaven, who held converse with man, and revealed unto him the darkness that enveloped the world, and unfolded unto him the gross darkness that surrounded the nations, those scenes that should take place in this generation, and would follow each other in quick succession, even unto the coming of the Messiah. The ANGEL taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world; and THE LORD gave him commandments, and sealed upon him the Priesthood, and gave him power to administer the ordinances of the house of the Lord. HE told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of HIS kingdom in the world, that the people had turned away from HIS true order, changed the ordinances, and broken the everlasting covenant, and inherited lies and things wherein their was no profit. HE told him the time had come to lay the foundation for the establishment of the Kingdom of God among men for the last time, preparatory to the winding up scene" (emphasis added).

When critics break the above quotation into pieces in the manner that they have, they create an unrecognized problem for themselves. A careful reading of this material indicates that it was not the angel who told Joseph Smith that "the gospel was not among men"; it was the "the Lord" who provided this information (see the capitalized/italicized words above: ANGEL, THE LORD, HE, HIS). The anti-Mormons have, through their editing of the text, made it falsely appear as if the words of the angel and the Lord were one and the same. Woodruff's quote does not state that it was the angel who told Joseph Smith that "the gospel was not among men"; it was the "the Lord" who provided this information

The attempt to use Wilford Woodruff's words to obscure the details of Mormon history is a misguided one because the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that critics advocate. Elder Woodruff was in the second highest leadership quorum of the Church during the lifetime of Joseph Smith and never once did he mention that the Prophet told two different tales about the founding of the last gospel dispensation.

It is difficult to believe that Elder Wilford Woodruff did not have an accurate knowledge of the traditional First Vision story prior to his 1855 remarks since on 3 February 1842 he became the superintendent of the printing office in Nauvoo, Illinois where the Times and Seasons newspaper was published and remained there through at least 8 November 1843. These dates are significant because in-between them the Prophet Joseph Smith had two separate accounts of the First Vision printed on the pages of the Times and Seasons and so Elder Woodruff would have been the person who was ultimately responsible for their production and distribution.

• Times and Seasons 3 no. 9 (1 March 1842), 706–707. off-site GospeLink [Wentworth Letter First Vision account].
• Times and Seasons 3 no. 11 (1 April 1842), 748–749. off-site GospeLink [History of the Church official First Vision account].

It should also be noted that before Elder Woodruff made his 1855 remarks six other members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles published First Vision accounts: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852). It seems highly unlikely that Elder Woodruff would have remained unaware of these publications, which were made available to the public by his closest associates.

George A. Smith

Apostle George A. Smith said on two separate occasions that Joseph Smith's First Vision was of an "angel"—not of the Father and the Son. However, the argument that George A. Smith was simply not aware of a Father-and-Son First Vision account when he made his "angel" statements is nonsense since it can be shown from a documentary standpoint that he did indeed have prior knowledge of such a thing. An argument of ignorance is also untenable in light of the fact that Brother Smith's close associates in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had published orthodox recitals of the First Vision on nine different occasions long BEFORE he made his verbal missteps at the pulpit: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852).

This does not mean that Brother Smith was not aware of the Father and the Son appearing to the Prophet at the time that he made his anomalous remarks. The following timeline demonstrates that the Prophet's cousin was well aware of the official version of events. His out-of-place comments need to be evaluated from that perspective.

• 7 April 1854: Elder George A. Smith was appointed at General Conference to be the new Church Historian.

• 9 August 1855: Elder George A. Smith wrote to the editor of the Deseret News on 9 August 1855 and gave permission to publish a short Church history that was originally requested for inclusion in a non-Mormon publication, but which ultimately did not appear in print. When Elder Smith told the First Vision story in this history he said that Joseph Smith beheld "two glorious Beings" during the experience. The capitalization of the word "Beings" indicates that the two individuals were considered to be Deity. Elder Smith then went on to tell the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon which, he said, was instigated by an "angel" who was commissioned of God (Deseret News, vol. 5, no. 26, 5 September 1855, 2).

• 15 August 1855: The First Vision account as found in the Wentworth Letter (1 March 1842) was published in Salt Lake City in connection with the official History of the Church. This account speaks of "two glorious personages" and then later speaks of the single "angel" who was involved in revealing the existence of the Book of Mormon plates. Since Elder Smith was the Church Historian at this time he likely would have known about the content of this publication.

• 6 August 1862: Elder George A. Smith's short Church history (see 9 August 1855 above) was reprinted on the pages of the Deseret News. In this First Vision account Elder Smith referred to "two glorious Beings" and then later spoke of the single "angel" who was involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon

• 15 November 1864: In a discourse on historical matters, Elder George A. Smith quoted directly from the official First Vision account, which was first published in the Times and Seasons newspaper on 15 March 1842 and 1 April 1842. Elder Smith recited the line, “This is my Beloved Son, hear Him” – leaving no doubt that he knew the specific identities of the two "personages" who appeared to Joseph Smith during the First Vision event.

• 15 November 1868: President George A. Smith (now a counselor in the First Presidency) accurately related many First Vision story elements - as published in the Church’s official history - but mistakenly mixed them together with several accurate angel Moroni story elements - as published in the Church’s official history. He said:

1. Joseph Smith was 14 or 15 years old

2. There was a revival involving Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists

3. There was a scramble after the revival to secure converts

4. Unpleasant feelings were the result

5. Joseph Smith had attended those meetings

6. Joseph Smith prayed because of James 1:5

7. The Lord sent an angel to Joseph Smith in answer to his prayer

8. Joseph Smith asked the angel which church was right and the angel said they were all wrong

9. The vision was repeated several times and Joseph Smith was commanded to tell his father about it

10. Joseph Smith’s father told him to observe the instructions that were given to him.

• 20 June 1869: President George A. Smith mistakenly mixed together accurate First Vision story elements with accurate angel Moroni story elements. He said:

1. Some members of Joseph Smith’s family joined the Presbyterians

2. Joseph Smith reflected much on religion

3. Joseph Smith was astonished at the bad feelings manifested at the end of the reformation

4. Joseph Smith was led to pray because of James 1:5

5. Joseph Smith had a vision of a holy angel

6. Joseph Smith asked which of the denominations in the vicinity was right

7. Joseph Smith was told that they had all gone astray and wandered into darkness

8. Joseph Smith was instructed not to join any of them

9. Joseph Smith was told that God was about to restore the gospel in its simplicity and purity.

• 1869: President George A. Smith published a small pamphlet which contained the Wentworth Letter account of the First Vision.

• 20 November 1870: President George A. Smith accurately related several First Vision story elements at the pulpit. This time he did NOT mistakenly include any angel Moroni story elements in his narrative.

1. The Lord revealed Himself to Joseph Smith

2. Joseph Smith was puzzled by hearing learned men preach about different doctrines

3. Joseph Smith saw the learned men quarrel over converts

4. Joseph Smith prayed humbly, with faith, because of James 1:5

5. Joseph Smith asked the Lord which was the right way

6. The Lord showed Joseph Smith the right way.

The timeline shows that George A. Smith was accurate in relating First Vision details when he had a physical text to read from. The pattern that can be seen in the timeline above is that George A. Smith was accurate in relating First Vision details when he had a physical text to read from or was formally writing down historical matters; he was accurate on many points when he was talking extemporaneously; he corrected himself after delivering erroneous verbal remarks.

Orson Hyde

Orson Hyde said during a General Conference in 1854:"Some one may say, 'If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Saviour come himself to communicate this intelligence to the world?'" Was Orson Hyde unaware of the details of the Father and Son appearing to Joseph in the First Vision?

When Elder Orson Hyde was discoursing in General Conference on 6 April 1854 he was NOT speaking about the First Vision (a story he knew very well from previously published literature) - he was trying to teach the Latter-day Saints about "the grand harvest" which would take place during "the winding up scene" and the part that "angels" would have in it. The evidence suggests that Elder Hyde was utilizing section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants as the basis for some of his remarks about angels, NOT about the events that took place within the Sacred Grove.

The proper context of Elder Hyde’s remarks can be determined simply by examining his opening statement. There he makes it clear that because it was currently the season for sowing crops he wanted to discourse on some parable imagery found in the 13th chapter of the New Testament book of Matthew (verses 1–9, 36–43).

Elder Hyde specifically mentioned that the "angels" were the agency through which "this reaping dispensation was committed to the children of men" and that these heavenly beings held "the keys of this dispensation." With these words he may well have been referring to the episode recorded in section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants where angels tell Joseph Smith - "the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands" (v. 16). They also "committed the gospel of the dispensation of Abraham" to the Prophet (v. 12) and, furthermore, they "committed unto [him] the keys of the gathering" (v. 11) - [harvest imagery]. Elder Hyde said in his sermon that the angels brought the news that "the time of the end was drawing nigh" and, significantly, the last of the angels to appear in D&C 110 said, "the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors" (v. 16).

A summary of Elder Hyde’s comments shows that he did not intend to speak about the First Vision at all; he wanted to impress upon that Saints that the latter-day work of gathering (the figurative harvest imagery) was inaugurated by angels and they would also play a role in the figurative separation of the wheat and the tares.

• 15 June 1841:

When Orson Hyde was in London, England on a mission he wrote to the Prophet Joseph Smith and informed him: “I have written a book to publish in the German language, setting forth our doctrine and principles in as clear and concise a manner as I possibly could. After giving the history of the rise of the Church, in something the manner that Br[other] O[rson] Pratt did, I have written a snug little article upon every point of doctrine believed by the Saints.”

Elder Hyde is referring to Elder Pratt’s missionary tract - published in Scotland in 1840 - called An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, which contained the first known published, full-length description of the First Vision event. Elder Hyde’s pamphlet contained a recounting of the First Vision that was very similar to the one found in Elder Pratt’s pamphlet.

• 1842: Elder Hyde’s pamphlet was published in Frankfurt, Germany sometime in the year 1842. It was called Eine Stimme aus dem Schoose der Erde (A Cry from the Wilderness, A Voice from the Depths of the Earth). This was the first known foreign-language rendition of the First Vision story.

• 6 February 1851: Elder Lorenzo Snow wrote a letter to Elder Orson Hyde on 6 February 1851 from Geneva, Switzerland and informed him that his own missionary tract called “The Voice of Joseph” (written between 23 July 1850 and 6 September 1850) was circulating in both Italy and Switzerland.

From the above information it can be determined that before Orson Hyde made his 1854 remarks he was aware of at least three orthodox First Vision accounts produced by members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

1. Orson Pratt’s missionary tract [published in 1840],

2. his own missionary tract [written in 1841], and

3. Lorenzo Snow’s missionary tract [written in 1850].

It is high unlikely that Elder Hyde did not possess an accurate understanding of the First Vision story before the year 1854.

Heber C. Kimball

Critics quote a portion of a sermon delivered at the Salt Lake Tabernacle on November 8, 1857 by Heber C. Kimball, in which it appears that he denies that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith. Here is what the critics quote:

Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come himself and call, but he sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates. Did God come himself? No; he sent Moroni and told him there was a record,…Well, then Peter comes along. Why did not God come? He sent Peter, do you not see? Why did he not come along? Because he has agents to attend to his business, and he sits upon his throne and is established at head-quarters, and tells this man, ‘Go and do this;’ and it is behind the vail just as it is here. You have got to learn that.

The very same evidence that was used in the construction of the anti-Mormon charge about Heber C. Kimball can be used to topple it. Kimball's remarks about God not appearing cannot be legitimately applied to Joseph Smith's First Vision experience. This argument is a classic example of taking an isolated statement out of its proper context and drawing a false conclusion based upon faulty evidence. When the entire sermon of Heber C. Kimball is examined in detail, the anti-Mormon argument quickly falls apart. Here is the full quote:

If God confers gifts, and blessings, and promises, and glories, and immortality, and eternal lives, and you receive them and treasure them up, then our Father and our God has joy in that man. . . . Do you not see [that] God is not pleased with any man except those that receive the gifts, and treasure them up, and practice upon those gifts? And He gives those gifts, and confers them upon you, and will have us to practice upon them. Now, these principles to me are plain and simple.

Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come Himself and call, but He sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates. Did God come Himself? No: He sent Moroni and told him there was a record, and says he, "That record is [a] matter that pertains to the Lamanites, and it tells when their fathers came out of Jerusalem, and how they came, and all about it; and, says he, "If you will do as I tell you, I will confer a gift upon you." Well, he conferred it upon him, because Joseph said he would do as he told him. "I want you to go to work and take the Urim and Thummim, and translate this book, and have it published, that this nation may read it." Do you not see, by Joseph receiving the gift that was conferred upon him, you and I have that record?

Well, when this took place, Peter came along to him and gave power and authority, and, says he, "You go and baptize Oliver Cowdery, and then ordain him a priest." He did it, and do you not see his works were in exercise? Then Oliver, having authority, baptized Joseph and ordained him a priest. Do you not see the works, how they manifest themselves?

Well, then Peter comes along. Why did not God come? He sent Peter, do you not see? Why did He not come along? Because He has agents to attend to His business, and He sits upon His throne and is established at headquarters, and tells this man, 'Go and do this'; and it is behind the veil just as it is here."

From a careful reading of this text it can be concluded that Kimball was talking about (#1) the appearance of the angel Moroni in 1823 in connection with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and (#2) the appearance of the apostle Peter in 1829 in connection with the bestowal of the Melchizedek Priesthood. He was talking about two heavenly beings bestowing "gifts" upon Joseph Smith on two different occasions; he was saying that in these two instances God sent His agents to accomplish particular works. However, Heber C. Kimball said absolutely nothing in this statement about the First Vision which occurred in 1820.

It cannot be successfully argued that Heber C. Kimball was not aware of the First Vision story by this point in time either, since no less a person than President Brigham Young recorded in his journal that Brother Kimball was present with several other General Authorities about two and a half months earlier (13 August 1857) when they placed a copy of the Pearl of Great Price inside the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple. This volume contained the 1838 account of the First Vision which was published by the Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois in 1842. There were also several other publications placed inside the temple cornerstone which rehearsed the First Vision story. These included:

• Lorenzo Snow's The Voice of Joseph
• Various tracts from Orson Pratt
• Franklin D. Richards's Compendium
• John Jaques's Catechism for Children
• Millennial Star, vol. 14 supplement
• Millennial Star, vol. 3

Joseph’s Age at the Time of First Vision

When Latter-day Saints describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision, they commonly note that he was very young at the time—about fourteen years old. This understanding comes primarily from Joseph’s later, more formal accounts, but it is also supported by his earliest writings when those documents are read in their historical context.

The most familiar account of the First Vision is Joseph Smith’s 1838–39 history, now canonized as Joseph Smith–History in the Pearl of Great Price. In that narrative, Joseph explained that the vision occurred in the spring of 1820, when he was “an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age.” Since Joseph was born on December 23, 1805, he would have been 14 years old during the spring of 1820, turning fifteen later that year.

Joseph’s other firsthand retellings of the First Vision are consistent with this timeline. In his 1835 account, he said the experience happened when he was “about 14 years old.” In an 1842 summary prepared for publication, he likewise stated that he was “about fourteen years of age” when the event took place. Even in casual recollections to acquaintances, Joseph repeatedly described the First Vision as something that happened in his early teens.

The main question arises from Joseph’s earliest known account, written in 1832. In this document, Joseph (or his scribe) stated that the vision occurred while he was “in the sixteenth year of my age.” At first glance, some readers assume this must mean Joseph was fifteen or even sixteen years old, creating a potential conflict with his later accounts. However, this phrase requires careful historical interpretation.

In early nineteenth-century English usage, saying someone was “in their sixteenth year” did not mean they were sixteen years old. Rather, it meant they had begun the year leading toward their sixteenth birthday. In other words, a person entered their “sixteenth year” immediately after turning fifteen, just as an infant is said to be “in their first year” from birth, not at age one. This older way of reckoning age was common in Joseph Smith’s day and appears in other contemporary documents.

Additionally, the phrase in the 1832 manuscript appears to have been inserted between the lines, suggesting it may reflect later clarification rather than careful chronological precision. The 1832 account itself was not intended as a polished autobiography; instead, it was a private, spiritual narrative focused on Joseph’s sins, repentance, and forgiveness, not on exact dates.

In the 1832 account, Frederick G. Williams inserted the "in the 16th year of my age" above Joseph's text after Joseph had already written it. (See: "History, circa Summer 1832," The Joseph Smith Papers)

When Joseph’s accounts are considered together, they present a coherent picture. He consistently placed the First Vision in the spring of 1820 and consistently described himself as about fourteen years old at the time. The wording in the 1832 account fits comfortably within this framework once historical language and age-counting conventions are taken into account.

In short, the documentary evidence supports the traditional understanding: Joseph Smith was fourteen years old when he experienced the First Vision, a young teenager seeking divine guidance in a time of religious confusion.

Joseph’s Motivation for Seeking Guidance from God

The multiple accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision have long attracted both devotion and criticism. Among the most common objections is the claim that Joseph changed his stated reason for praying over time. Critics argue that his earliest account (1832) presents a desire for forgiveness of sins as his primary motivation, while later accounts—especially the 1838 narrative canonized in the Pearl of Great Price—emphasize a desire to know which church was true. According to this view, the differing emphases represent a contradiction and suggest that the First Vision story evolved over time.

A close reading of all the available evidence, however, shows that this conclusion rests on an oversimplified comparison of selective phrases rather than on the full substance of the documents. When the accounts are read carefully and in their historical and religious context, Joseph Smith’s motivations appear consistent rather than contradictory. From the beginning, he expressed two closely related concerns: a desire to be forgiven of sins and a desire to worship God correctly by affiliating with the true church.

The Core Claim of the Criticism

Critics typically contrast two statements:

• 1832 account: “I cried unto the Lord for mercy, for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy.”
• 1838 account: “My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join.”

From these statements alone, critics conclude that Joseph originally prayed only for forgiveness and later revised his story to include questions about church authority. This comparison, however, strips both texts of their surrounding explanations and ignores the broader religious assumptions of Joseph Smith’s world.

A Close Reading of the 1832 Account

The 1832 account, partly written in Joseph Smith’s own hand, devotes significant space to describing the spiritual journey that led him to prayer. Far from portraying a narrow concern with personal guilt alone, the account reveals a young man grappling with multiple, interconnected questions.

Between the ages of twelve and fifteen, Joseph became deeply concerned about “the welfare of [his] immortal soul.” His search of the scriptures led him to compare biblical Christianity with the behavior and teachings of the denominations around him. This comparison caused him to “marvel exceedingly” and grieve that those who professed religion did not live in a manner consistent with scripture. Joseph further concluded—based on both scripture study and personal observation—that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.” He mourned not only for his own sins, but also “for the sins of the world,” reflecting concern for widespread religious corruption, not merely individual failure.

Only after recounting all of these considerations does Joseph explain why he prayed: “When I considered all these things… therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy.” His prayer was a response to the cumulative weight of doctrinal confusion, perceived apostasy, concern for correct worship, and personal conviction of sin.

In other words, forgiveness of sins was not the sole motivation for prayer—it was part of a broader religious crisis.

Forgiveness of Sins and the “True Church” in Joseph’s Religious World

Understanding Joseph Smith’s motivations requires recognizing an important feature of early nineteenth-century American Christianity. As historian Christopher C. Jones has observed, Joseph’s accounts strongly resemble Methodist conversion narratives, in which forgiveness of sins and correct church affiliation were inseparable. In Joseph’s religious culture, one found forgiveness by joining the right church and adhering to correct doctrine.

Under this framework, asking God for forgiveness inherently involved asking God which church—and which teachings—were correct. The two concerns rode in tandem, not in competition. Thus, even if the 1832 account emphasizes repentance language, it does not exclude institutional or doctrinal concerns. On the contrary, the account explicitly laments the failure of existing denominations to embody New Testament Christianity.

Significantly, in the vision itself, Joseph is told not merely that his sins are forgiven, but that “the world lieth in sin” and that religious leaders “draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me,” echoing Matthew 15:8–9. This language points beyond personal forgiveness toward a general apostasy and the need for divine restoration.

Scriptural Allusions and the Broader Apostasy Theme

The 1832 account also draws on scriptural language that Joseph later revisited during his translation of the Bible—particularly in JST Psalm 14. That psalm laments the loss of truth in the last days, declaring that “none doeth good” because religious teachers have gone astray. Scholars such as Joseph Fielding McConkie, Matthew Brown, Don Bradley, and Walker Wright have noted that Joseph’s JST rendering of Psalm 14 closely parallels themes in the First Vision and may even have influenced the language of his early history.

These parallels reinforce the idea that Joseph’s concern was not simply moral failure among individuals, but doctrinal corruption among religious teachers and institutions. Under this reading, the 1832 account implicitly addresses the same “which church is true?” question that later accounts state more explicitly.

The Later Accounts: Emphasis Without Contradiction

Joseph Smith’s later narrations of the First Vision vary in detail depending on audience and purpose. The 1835 account includes both concerns explicitly: uncertainty about which religious system was right and the declaration that his sins were forgiven. The 1838 account foregrounds religious confusion and the question of church authority but still alludes to “many other things” said during the vision that are not recorded—leaving room for experiences, such as forgiveness, described elsewhere.

Similarly, third-party retellings by Orson Pratt (1840) and Orson Hyde (1842) combine both themes: preparation for a future state, concern for salvation, confusion among denominations, and assurance of divine favor.

Rather than showing a shift in motivation, these accounts show selective emphasis, shaped by context and audience. None of them deny either concern; each highlights different aspects of the same religious struggle.

The claim that Joseph Smith changed his motivation for seeking revelation does not survive careful scrutiny. Across all accounts, Joseph presents himself as a young man profoundly concerned with salvation—how to prepare for eternity, how to worship God correctly, and how to receive forgiveness of sins. In his worldview, these were not separate questions but variations on the same theme. Differences among the First Vision accounts reflect changes in emphasis, audience, and narrative purpose—not contradiction. When read in context and within the religious culture of Joseph Smith’s time, the accounts form a coherent and internally consistent explanation of why he went to the grove to pray in 1820.

Rather than depicting an evolving fabrication, the evidence shows a stable core story: Joseph Smith sought divine guidance because he believed his soul—and the religious world around him—were in need of correction that only God could provide.

Knowing if God Existed

A frequently repeated claim in critical discussions of early Latter-day Saint history is that Oliver Cowdery taught that Joseph Smith did not even know whether a “Supreme Being” existed prior to 1823, thereby implying ignorance of God before the visit of the angel Moroni. This claim is based on a selective and decontextualized reading of Oliver Cowdery’s Church history, published in installments in the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate beginning in late 1834. When read carefully and in full historical context, Oliver’s account does not deny Joseph Smith’s First Vision, nor does it suggest that Joseph was an atheist prior to Moroni’s visit. Instead, it reflects a complex narrative strategy, one that presupposes Joseph’s earlier divine encounter while choosing not to narrate it directly.

Oliver Cowdery’s 1834–1835 History

In December 1834, Oliver Cowdery began publishing a formal history of the Church in the Messenger and Advocate. In the first installment, Oliver accurately placed Joseph Smith at fourteen years of age during a period of intense religious excitement and revivalism. He described the surrounding sectarian contention and Joseph’s deep concern for his soul—an account that clearly parallels Joseph Smith’s own descriptions of the circumstances leading to the First Vision.

This initial installment builds narrative momentum toward a revelatory experience. Readers naturally expect the culminating event to be Joseph’s First Vision. However, in the second installment, published in February 1835, Oliver takes an unexpected turn.

The Apparent Discontinuity in the Second Installment

In the February 1835 installment, Oliver abruptly “corrects” Joseph’s age from fourteen to seventeen and proceeds to describe the visit of the angel Moroni rather than the First Vision. He does not narrate the vision of the Father and the Son explicitly, creating the impression—at least for modern readers unfamiliar with the broader documentary record—that Oliver either did not know of the First Vision or believed the Moroni visitation to be Joseph’s earliest divine encounter.

This narrative move has led some critics to argue that the First Vision was a later invention and that Joseph initially believed Moroni’s appearance was his first theophany. However, this interpretation collapses under close examination of both Oliver’s own language and the documentary evidence available at the time he was writing.

Evidence That Oliver Knew of the First Vision

By 1834, Joseph Smith had already recorded an account of his First Vision in his 1832 history, in which he explicitly stated that he “saw the Lord.” There is substantial evidence that Oliver Cowdery had access to this document while preparing his history. Not only was Oliver serving as Church historian at the time, but there are also striking verbal and thematic correlations between Joseph’s 1832 account, Oliver’s 1834–1835 history, and Joseph’s 1835 journal entry describing the same events.

Rather than being ignorant of the First Vision, Oliver appears to have assumed its reality and authority—so much so that he felt no need to retell it in detail. Instead, he refers to it obliquely before continuing his narrative with Moroni’s visit.

“If a Supreme Being Did Exist”: What Oliver Actually Meant

The most frequently misunderstood statement in Oliver’s February 1835 installment occurs when he minimizes the earlier religious excitement and writes that Joseph sought:

a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him.

This sentence is often cited as evidence that Joseph doubted the existence of God prior to 1823. However, the grammatical structure and narrative framing show that Oliver is referring retrospectively to Joseph’s earlier state of concern, not his condition at age seventeen. The “religious excitement” is explicitly described as a past experience, tied to Joseph’s youth and spiritual anxiety, not as his settled worldview.

Immediately following this statement, Oliver affirms that Joseph’s seeking had already been answered. He writes:

This, most assuredly, was correct—it was right. The Lord has said, long since… that for him who knocks it shall be opened.

The phrase “long since” signals that the divine response occurred prior to the events Oliver is about to describe—namely, the visit of Moroni. In other words, Oliver is assuring readers that Joseph’s earlier plea for divine confirmation had already been answered, even though Oliver does not recount the vision explicitly.

An Intentional Narrative Shift, Not a Denial

Oliver Cowdery’s decision to move directly to Moroni’s visit after alluding to Joseph’s earlier divine encounter appears to be a stylistic and narrative choice, not a theological one. The second installment functions as a transition from Joseph’s preparatory spiritual experiences to the beginning of his prophetic commission tied to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Far from denying the First Vision, Oliver signals its reality while choosing to focus on subsequent events. His language affirms that something decisive and correct had already taken place in Joseph’s life—a divine response consistent with Joseph Smith’s own accounts.

Oliver Cowdery did not claim that Joseph Smith lacked belief in a Supreme Being until 1823, nor did he deny or replace the First Vision with Moroni’s appearance. When read carefully, Oliver’s history presupposes Joseph’s earlier encounter with God and reflects familiarity with Joseph’s 1832 account. The much-discussed phrase “if a Supreme being did exist” describes Joseph’s earlier religious questioning, not his final understanding.

Rather than undermining Joseph Smith’s First Vision, Oliver Cowdery’s history quietly affirms it—demonstrating that by the mid-1830s, the experience was known, authoritative, and foundational, even when not retold in full detail.

Were All the Churches False or Not?

One of the most persistent criticisms of Joseph Smith’s First Vision accounts is the claim that he had already concluded—before going to the grove to pray—that all churches were false. According to this argument, statements in Joseph’s earliest account (1832) indicate that he had already determined that “there was no society or denomination” built upon the New Testament. This, critics argue, contradicts later accounts in which Joseph expresses uncertainty about which church was true and even surprise upon being told by God to join none of them.

A careful examination of the historical record shows that this criticism rests on a false dilemma. Joseph Smith did not enter the grove having definitively decided that all churches everywhere were false. Rather, the evidence consistently portrays a young seeker who had become deeply disillusioned with the denominations known to him, yet remained uncertain about his duty and still hoped that God would identify the true path.

The Claim of Contradiction

Critics typically point to an apparent tension between two sets of statements:

• 1832 account: Joseph states that through scripture study he learned that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.”
• 1835 and 1838 accounts: Joseph repeatedly says that he “knew not who was right or who was wrong” and that his object in praying was to know “which of all the sects was right.”

From this contrast, critics argue that Joseph had already concluded that all churches were false in 1832 but later revised his story to portray himself as uncertain in order to heighten the drama or doctrinal implications of the First Vision.

This conclusion, however, misunderstands both the scope of Joseph’s early conclusions and the language he used to describe them.

What Joseph Smith Actually Concluded Before Praying

The 1832 account explains how Joseph reached his preliminary conclusions. From roughly age twelve onward, he studied the Bible and compared it to what he observed among the Christian denominations in his area. His conclusions were based on his “intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations,” not on abstract knowledge of Christianity worldwide.

When Joseph wrote that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ,” the context suggests a judgment about the denominations with which he was familiar, not a settled conclusion about every church on earth. This reading is reinforced by contemporaneous evidence. An 1832 newspaper report stated that Joseph “had not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them, and being in doubt what his duty was, he had recourse to prayer.”

In other words, Joseph’s scripture study had led him to doubt the adequacy of the denominations he knew—but not to certainty about what he should do instead. His conclusions intensified his confusion rather than resolved it.

Doubt and Uncertainty in the Later Accounts

This same uncertainty appears consistently in Joseph’s later accounts. In his 1835 diary entry, he wrote that he “knew not who was right or who was wrong” and felt it was “of the first importance” to determine the truth because of the eternal consequences involved. In the 1838 account, he explained that he was too young and inexperienced “to come to any certain conclusion who was right, and who was wrong,” despite his growing concerns about religious corruption.

This is not a retreat from an earlier certainty but an acknowledgment that Joseph’s personal conclusions were insufficient. The fact that he had already identified serious doctrinal problems did not give him confidence to act decisively. Instead, it convinced him that only divine revelation could settle the matter.

“Never Entered Into My Heart”: A Question of Meaning

One frequently cited objection focuses on Joseph Smith–History 1:18–19, where Joseph says that it “had never entered into my heart” that all churches were wrong, even though earlier he had asked whether “they were all wrong together.” At face value, this appears contradictory.

However, the phrase “entered into my heart” carries a specific meaning in Joseph’s religious vocabulary. Joseph used similar language elsewhere to describe moments of spiritual certainty rather than mere intellectual consideration. Something could pass through the mind without being fully accepted or internalized at the level of conviction.

Thus, Joseph could consider the possibility that the local denominations were all in error without emotionally or spiritually accepting the idea that no true church existed anywhere. Indeed, a draft history recorded by scribe Howard Coray clarifies this point by stating that Joseph “supposed that one of them were so”—that is, he still believed that at least one sect might be right, even if he had doubts.

The Scope of Joseph’s Question: Local or Universal?

Another key insight comes from reading Joseph Smith–History 1:10–18 as a continuous thought rather than isolated verses. In the passages immediately preceding Joseph’s famous question, he specifically names the Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists as the denominations contending around him. His question—“Who of all these parties are right?”—naturally refers back to those groups.

Read this way, Joseph was asking whether the prominent denominations in his area were correct—or whether they were all mistaken—not whether Christianity itself had entirely vanished from the earth. If so, the later instruction to “join none of them” because all were wrong—apparently without geographical or denominational limitation—could well have been surprising and spiritually jarring.

Orson Pratt and the Broader Religious World

Orson Pratt’s 1840 account further undermines the idea that Joseph had already settled the question. Pratt reports that Joseph reflected on the existence of “many hundreds of different denominations” worldwide and wondered whether any of them constituted the Church of Christ. This expansive view makes little sense if Joseph had already concluded that all churches everywhere were false. Instead, it portrays a young man hoping—however uncertainly—that somewhere among the many sects was the truth.

The historical evidence does not support the claim that Joseph Smith definitively concluded before the First Vision that all churches were false. Rather, it shows that he became increasingly aware of doctrinal corruption and religious division among the denominations he knew, which deepened his uncertainty and led him to seek divine guidance.

Joseph’s scripture study created a crisis, not a resolution. He doubted the churches around him, questioned the integrity of their teachings, and mourned the spiritual condition of the world—but he did not claim the authority or certainty to declare universal apostasy on his own. That determination, according to all accounts, came only through revelation.

Thus, far from undermining the First Vision narratives, the apparent tension between the accounts reflects a realistic process of religious searching: growing doubt, unresolved questions, and the decision to seek answers from God rather than from human judgment alone.

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

Response to claim: 33 - “the LDS concept of a total apostasy contradicts Christ’s promise that ‘I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it”

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that “the LDS concept of a total apostasy contradicts Christ’s promise that ‘I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

Author's sources: Matthew 16:18

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

This is a misunderstanding the original Greek text. In this case, "hell" is not a reference to the powers or evil, or Satan.

The word translated as "hell" in the KJV is actually Hades, the dwelling place of all departed spirits. For the gates of Hades to not prevail against the church could mean that the gates would not be able to stop the church from entering therein. (By comparison, in The Gospel of Nicodemus the "gates" mentioned in Psalm 24 refer to the gates of Hades and the attempt made there to keep out Jesus in the period between his death and resurrection. [See The Gospel of Nicodemus, Part II, 6 in ANF 8:436-437.]) In other words, Christ’s Church, his disciples, would preach the gospel not only among the living, but also among the dead—not even the gates of Hades could keep them out.

Another interpretation is that "prevail" has reference to keeping inhabitants inside. In this thought, gates could only prevail against something that is already inside of them and not external to them. This interpretation would be that Christ was saying that His Church would soon be inside the gates of the spirit world alone because of apostasy on earth, but that the Church would later come out from the world of the dead and back to earth—that His Church would shortly be confined to the spirit world, held back by its gates, but that later, members of Christ's Ancient Church (such as Peter, James, and John) would come, by revelation, out from behind the gates of Hades to restore the gospel to the earth.

Both of the above readings are distinct possibilities. Both reconcile all the Biblical data.

Question: Does the fact that Jesus said, "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" mean that universal apostasy was impossible?

Jesus' teaching about the rock is not a reference to any individual church or group of believers, since even well-intentioned mortals must fail

Some Christians argue that a universal apostasy is impossible, because Jesus told Peter, "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18) It is claimed that this means the Church organized by Jesus would never suffer apostasy and loss.

Jesus' teaching about the rock is not a reference to any individual church or group of believers, since even well-intentioned mortals must fail. Christ is the only sure foundation upon which a church can be built, and the knowledge of Christ must come as it always has, as it came to Peter—by direct revelation from the Father. Christ's Church will then be built upon those who have such revelation of Christ, including prophets and apostles.

The gates of hell prevailing against the church must refer to keeping the church in or out of the Hades, the dwelling place of departed spirits

The gates of hell prevailing against the church must refer to keeping the church in or out of the Hades, the dwelling place of departed spirits. Gates do not force people to enter or leave, but they do keep people from going in or out. Therefore, the Catholic and Protestant interpretations are not very intelligible whereas the Latter-day Saints can interpret the passage in at least two logical, Biblically sound ways.

It is not surprising that this issue revolves around how one interprets Jesus' remark. There are several options. Key to understanding the passage, however, is figuring out what the final "it" refers to: the church or the rock. Does the passage mean "the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church," or does the passage mean "the gates of hell shall not prevail against this rock?" If it refers to the "rock," then one must determine what "the rock" refers to. Similarly, the word "prevail" can be interpreted in a number of ways.

Catholic perspective: "this rock" is literally Peter

The Catholic church, of course, thinks that "this rock" is literally Peter, and have based their claims to apostolic succession on the unbroken succession of bishops of Rome back to Peter. Other churches must necessarily define a different meaning, because they cannot claim apostolic succession in this way.

Churches (such as the Protestants) who believe that the Church of Rome is somehow flawed or in apostasy from the pure truth must adopt a different reading.

Protestant perspective: "the rock" refers to the Christian Church

Protestant readers have generally interpreted "the rock" to refer to the Christian Church. Under this reading, Jesus is promising that the church will never be entirely overcome by death and/or the forces of Satan.

Latter-day Saint perspective: the only true, unmovable rock that exists is revelation from God

Latter-day Saints have generally read this verse as referring to the only true, unmovable rock that exists--revelation from God. That is the rock upon which any Church must be built, and it is evidenced by the verses just before this one. In Matthew 16:13-17, the subject is literally revelation given to Peter as to who Jesus Christ really is. This knowledge came by revelation from God (Matthew 16:17), and Christ taught Peter that this revelation is the rock upon which He would build His Church. This is confirmed by Joseph Smith's teachings.

Jesus in His teaching says, “upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” What rock? Revelation.

Both the Protestant and Catholic versions must contend with the fact that other Biblical authors taught an inevitable apostasy. It would seem strange for such Biblical authors, including Peter, to teach something which Jesus here denies.

One must also notice that gates only prevail against something by keeping it out or by holding it in. It makes little sense for gates, which by nature keep inhabitants in or out of a place, to "prevail" by forcing something to enter is completely illogical. The Catholic and Protestant interpretations force an interpretation that isn't logical, namely, that gates prevail by forcing someone to enter or someone to leave. Gates, of course, serve no such function. Gates keep things in or out, but they do not force things to go in or to go out.

"Prevail" meaning "to keep out"

The word translated as "hell" in the KJV is actually Hades, the dwelling place of all departed spirits. For the gates of Hades to not prevail against them could mean that the gates would not be able to stop the church from entering therein. (By comparison, in The Gospel of Nicodemus the "gates" mentioned in Psalm 24 refer to the gates of Hades and the attempt made there to keep out Jesus in the period between his death and resurrection. In other words, Christ’s Church, his disciples, would preach the gospel not only among the living, but also among the dead—not even the gates of Hades could keep them out.

In this context, Jesus gives Peter the sealing power to bind on earth and have it bound in heaven. For Latter-day Saints the word "bind" in Matthew 16:19 is synonymous with "seal." This passage has reference to priesthood authority to perform ordinances or sacraments, such as baptism, echoing the Shepherd of Hermas’ usage of the word "seal." When a baptism (seal) is performed vicariously for the dead by proper priesthood authority, the seal (baptism) is recognized in heaven. Thus, Joseph Smith explained, "there is a way to release the spirit of the dead; that is, by the power and authority of the Priesthood—by binding and loosing on earth."

As extreme as this interpretation may seem, this was not a foreign concept to early Christians. Clement of Alexandria (AD 160-215), among others, believed that the apostles of Christ preached the gospel to the departed spirits in Hades. "And it has been shown also…that the apostles, following the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in Hades. For it was requisite, in my opinion, that as here, so also there, the best of the disciples should be imitators of the master..."

"Prevail" meaning "to keep in"

Another interpretation is that "prevail" has reference to keeping inhabitants inside. In this thought, gates could only prevail against something that is already inside of them and not external to them. This interpretation would be that Christ was saying that His Church would soon be inside the gates of the spirit world alone because of apostasy on earth, but that the Church would later come out from the world of the dead and back to earth—that His Church would shortly be confined to the spirit world, held back by its gates, but that later, members of Christ's Ancient Church (such as Peter, James, and John) would come, by revelation, out from behind the gates of Hades to restore the gospel to the earth.

Both of the above readings are distinct possibilities. Both reconcile all the Biblical data.

"Prevail" meaning "shut up against"

A literal translation of the passage reads as follows:

"You are Peter or a small stone broken from a larger rock and upon the original larger rock I will establish my church and the gates of the world of spirts, or sheol, will not be shut up against my church or overpower the dead saints."

In this context the passage could be Christ teaching that the spirits of the departed will have the chance to hear the gospel. This is supported by Peter's teaching about Christ's ministry to the world of spirits just prior to his resurrection in 1 Peter 3:18-22 through 1 Peter 4:1-6).

Latter-day Saints believe that this sealing power given to Peter is the same power and keys that can seal families on both sides of the veil.

Jesus is also the Rock

It is not just revelation, however, that is key, but the revelation of Christ by God the Father.

The image of a rock is found throughout scripture, and bears directly on Jesus' remark to Peter:

But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:13-22)

Paul argues that the Church is built on a foundation of, among others, apostles and prophets, who were grounded in Christ as the cornerstone. Thus, Christ is the rock, as are those who receive revelation of Christ (such as the apostles and prophets) and His mission as part of their calling. Significantly, the apostasy resulted in the loss of apostolic authority (unless one accepts the apostolic succession of Rome).

Paul cautioned the Corinthian saints against presuming they could build on anyone or thing besides Christ:

For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. (1 Corinthians 3:9-23) (emphasis added)

Paul tells the saints that they are building the Church; but the Church cannot be built on man or men, even great men like Paul, Apollos, or Peter. (Of course, one cannot reject the testimony of the prophets and apostles either. But, relying on a mortal, fallible man alone will not suffice.)

Only Christ is a sufficiently firm basis for faith, practice, and belief. And, Christ cannot be found through the "wisdom of this world," but only through on-going revelation.

Paul noted the use of the same symbol later in the epistle, tying the Christians to covenant Israel:

MOREOVER, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:1-4) (emphasis added)

One must ask again, How was Israel guided? By a prophet, who provided knowledge by revelation of the Rock of Israel. This symbol was a common one, of course, for the Israelites:

Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. (Isaiah 28:16-17)

Response to claim: 33 - the Book of Hebrews “explains that the Aaronic priesthood was brought to an end with the death of Christ and that Christ is our only eternal High Priest ‘after the order of Melchizedek’”

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that the Book of Hebrews “explains that the Aaronic priesthood was brought to an end with the death of Christ and that Christ is our only eternal High Priest ‘after the order of Melchizedek.’”

Author's sources: Hebrews 3:1; 4:14-16; 5:1-9; 6:20; 7:11-28.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles illustrated the doctrine clearly:

Since all priesthood is Melchizedek, the Aaronic Priesthood being a portion of it, one does not lose the Aaronic Priesthood when he is ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood [...]

The Church uses the Aaronic priesthood as a "preparatory" priesthood, but has no disagreement with the idea that the Melchizedek priesthood contains greater power and authority, and is vital to the government of the Church of Christ. It should be noted that all priesthood was not equivalent in the New Testament Church either. For example, many members had been baptized with water (an ordinance of the Aaronic priesthood) but had not yet received the Holy Ghost until one of the apostles laid hands upon them (a Melchizedek priesthood function). (See Acts 8:15–19, Acts 19:2–6).

Question: Why do Mormons use the Aaronic Priesthood, since Hebrews 7 states that the Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood was "changed" to the unique priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek" held by Jesus Christ?

The idea that the Melchizedek Priesthood superseded the Aaronic Priesthood is a correct one, but this does not necessarily imply that there is no Aaronic Priesthood

As other Christians see it, the Aaronic Priesthood is like a small glass of water that is replaced by a fruit juice (the Melchizedek Priesthood). They are distinguished from each other, in most Christians' eyes, as quite separate things.

The LDS would use a different metaphor to explain things: they might compare the Aaronic Priesthood to a glass of water that is filled only part way. Instead of being replaced by an entirely different drink, more water is poured into it until it is a full glass (the Melchizedek Priesthood).

From a Mormon perspective, the two priesthoods are really the same substance: the power of God delegated to man

From whence do the two priesthoods originate? The same source—God. What is the purpose of the two priesthoods? They bring mortals to the Lord (note that only the Melchizedek Priesthood can do so entirely—see Hebrews 7:11—but the Aaronic Priesthood was instrumental in keeping ancient Israel holy and pure). The Aaronic Priesthood is merely a limited form of the Melchizedek Priesthood, or (as LDS scriptures call it) an "appendage" to it (D&C 107:13–14).

Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles illustrated the doctrine clearly:

Since all priesthood is Melchizedek, the Aaronic Priesthood being a portion of it, one does not lose the Aaronic Priesthood when he is ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood [...]

Why does the Aaronic Priesthood persist in the Church?

So, if the Church possesses the Melchizedek priesthood, then why would the Aaronic Priesthood persist today? The Aaronic priesthood serves as a 'preparatory priesthood' (see D&C 84:26.) Just as the Levitical authority in ancient Israel acted as a "schoolmaster" to prepare Israel to receive Christ (see Galatians 3:24–25), in the modern Church the Aaronic priesthood serves to school young men for service in God's kingdom on earth.

The modern Aaronic priesthood's organizational structure follows the pattern established by the New Testament Church, and consists of Deacons (see Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:8,10,12–13), Teachers (Acts 13:1,1 Corinthians 12:28–29), and Priests (see Acts 6:7), and countless references in the Old Testament to Levitical/Aaronic 'priests').

Each Aaronic priesthood office is trusted with more responsibility, providing LDS young men with the opportunity to progress and mature until they are ready to receive the priesthood in full—the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Aaronic priesthood duties and function similar to ancient Israel

Despite some modern differences from ancient Israel, the Aaronic Priesthood is not much different compared to ancient times.

The Aaronic priesthood performs two ordinances (some Christian groups would call these 'sacraments').

1. Baptism: John the Baptist held the Aaronic Priesthood, which holds the keys of baptism, and baptism is of course a fundamental part of salvation through Christ (see Acts 2:38).
2. Sacrifice: The modern Church does not, of course, sacrifice animals because Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself for us, giving us the last great sacrifice (see Ephesians 5:2). Yet, the Church rejoices in and recalls His sacrifice for us by partaking of the sacrament ("communion" or "the Lord's supper" in other denominations) Matthew 26:26-29). Thus, the modern priest repeats a ceremony of atonement and sacrifice through the sacrament of the Lord's supper; this plays a similar theological role to the animal sacrifices offered by Aaronic priests anticipation of Christ's atonement and resurrection.

Separation of priesthood duties in the New Testament Church

It should be noted that all priesthood was not equivalent in the New Testament Church either. For example, many members had been baptized with water (an ordinance of the Aaronic priesthood) but had not yet received the Holy Ghost until one of the apostles laid hands upon them (a Melchizedek priesthood function). (See Acts 8:15–19, Acts 19:2–6).

Response to claim: 33 - the Church was originally named “The Church of Christ,” followed by “The Church of the Latter Day Saints"

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author notes that the Church was originally named “The Church of Christ,” followed by “The Church of the Latter Day Saints,” and then ultimately changed by revelation to “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

Author's sources: Doctrine and Covenants 115:4.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

The original name of the Church, and the subsequent name “Church of the Latter Day Saints” were not received by revelation. The name of the Church was ultimately given by revelation to be “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

Question: How many times was the name of the Church changed through revelation?

Criticisms regarding the name of the Church

Critics of the Church ask: Why did the Church change its name twice during its history? Shouldn't the name have been given by revelation? In 1834 the name of the Church was changed to “The Church of the Latter Day Saints”. Why would Joseph remove the name of “Jesus Christ” from the name of his Church? In 1838, the name of the Church was changed to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (there was originally no hyphen in the name). Why was the name of the Church changed again?

The name of the Church was changed through revelation only once

Christ only instructed Joseph through revelation to change the name of the Church once, as described in D&C 115꞉3. Prior to that time, the Church was referred to by several different names, including "The Church of Christ," "Church of Jesus Christ," "Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints," "The Church of God" and "The Church of Latter Day Saints." The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in D&C 115꞉3.

...for thus it shall be called, and unto all the elders and people of my Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, scattered abroad in all the world.

None of the other names by which the Church was known were established by revelation.

David Whitmer disagreed with the change in the name of the Church and it was one of the reasons for his disaffection

It is interesting to note that the change in the name of the Church bothered David Whitmer. Whitmer insisted that the original name of the Church, the "Church of Christ," was the only proper one, and claimed that it had been given by revelation. There is no known revelation to support this claim however, unless you count the Book of Mormon itself. Whitmer appears to be using the Book of Mormon to support this claim (the Book of Mormon uses "Church of Christ".)

It should also be noted that, according to Whitmer, Joseph didn't promote the name change from the "Church of Christ" to the "Church of the Latter Day Saints." Whitmer claimed that it was Sidney Rigdon who pushed to change the name to "Church of the Latter Day Saints":

In June, 1829, the Lord gave us the name by which we must call the church, being the same as He gave the Nephites. We obeyed His commandment, and called it THE CHURCH OF CHRIST until 1834, when, through the influence of Sydney Rigdon, the name of the church was changed to "The Church of the Latter Day Saints," dropping out the name of Christ entirely, that name which we were strictly commanded to call the church by, and which Christ by His own lips makes so plain. (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ by a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Mormon (David Whitmer: Richmond, Virginia, 1887).)

Response to claim: 34 - Joseph received the promise that a temple in Independence, Missouri would be “reared in this generation"

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that Joseph received the promise that a temple in Independence, Missouri would be “reared in this generation,” yet “the LDS Church has not built the temple in Independence.”

Author's sources: Doctrine and Covenants 84:3-5

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

This was not a prophecy, but a command from God to build the temple

< Back to FAIR Answers Index

V

Articles about Joseph Smith

Life and Character	Status in Latter-day Saint belief Joseph's trustworthiness Money digging Folk magic or the occult The Word of Wisdom Alleged narcissism
Youth	Joseph Smith's family as trustworthy and hard-working Education Use of seer stones as a youth The Hurlbut affidavits Joseph Smith's 1826 trial
Revelations and the Church	Witness of Jesus Christ First Vision Book of Mormon Joseph Smith's inspired revision of the Bible (JST) The restoration of the priesthood Personages who appeared to Joseph Smith Production of the Book of Abraham Kinderhook Plates
Prophetic Statements	The U.S. Civil War Rocky Mountain prophecy The White Horse prophecy Alleged false prophecies of Joseph Smith Joseph Smith and Old Testament practices
Society	Legal issues 1826 trial Creation of the Kirtland Safety Society Failure of the Kirtland Safety Society Campaign for President of the United States
Plural marriage (polygamy)	Plural marriage or polygamy Polygamy navigator Plural wives of Joseph Smith
Death	The Nauvoo Expositor Events surrounding the death of Joseph Smith Firing a gun at Carthage Jail Qualification as a martyr 1844 Succession to Joseph Smith

Alleged false prophecies by leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Many critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints assert that its past presidents (men that Latter-day Saints consider prophets) have made failed prophecies and that this either proves or provides evidence for the claim that they aren't true prophets receiving revelation from God.

We will first discuss general principles regarding alleged false prophecies.

The Three Models of Prophecy: Film Reel, Weather Forecast, and Plan

How we understand a claim of false prophecy will depend on what we understand prophecy to be. There are at least three potential models:

1. Film Reel model: The future is already planned out and God, like an old-timey projectionist, can unfurl the reel and see what happens further on in the movie of life, come back to the present, and reveal that will to his children. Key to this model of prophecy is that the events revealed in prophecy will certainly happen.
2. Weather forecast model: God makes a prediction of the future based off of present circumstances. If present circumstances change, then the prophecy does not have to reach fulfillment. God’s formula in scripture seems to be one set up on conditional statements. In this model, prophecy is a description of what will probably happen, not a certain declaration.
3. Plan model: God revealing his plans for the future given certain conditions being met. If those conditions are not met, then God will act differently. For instance, God can state that if A happens, then B will happen. (For example, "If you do not repent, you will be destroyed." Under this model, humans make choices right now that change the outcome of the prophecy. Key to this model of prophecy is that the events revealed and described in prophecy will contingently happen.

Elements of all models may apply in some situations. We often have a model in mind without realizing it, and so make judgments based on only a partial view of what prophecy is or can be.

A more speculative fourth option—God's foreknowledge may not be absolute

A more speculative option (and one that is likely to be much more objectionable for some) is the idea that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge of the future. (Conservative protestant critics, often Calvinists by theology, would typically reject this option strongly since they believe in God's absolute sovereignty—including the idea that some people are unconditionally chosen from all eternity to be saved. Those so chosen will always respond to God's decision to offer them salvation, and this saved state cannot be undone by any human choice or action,

By contrast, the restored Church of Jesus Christ holds to none of these views—God has not predestined any of his children to salvation or damnation, all have the moral agency to respond to God's gracious offer of salvation, and even those who are in a saved state and covenant relationship can use that same moral agency to reject God and not "endure to the end."

The Church does not take an official position as to how members ought to view God's foreknowledge.

Some believe that God has knowledge of all things that will actually happen in the future.

Others believe that the nature of free will or moral agency means that even God cannot be certain how truly free creatures will act until they do so. Thus, God has a very good idea of how things will go, but he does not achieve certainty until we choose to act. Those who hold this view insist that this does not mean that God does not have all the power it is possible to have—merely that absolute foreknowledge is a logical impossibility. Further, they also believe that regardless of these considerations, God is still absolutely capable of bringing to pass his purposes, and no moral agent can thwart his plans, save as it regards themselves.

Deuteronomy 18—a biblical test of true prophesy

Critics from other branches of Christianity often cite Deuteronomy 18:20–22 as a scriptural test of a claim to prophethood. That scripture states:

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

This test is straightforward—if a prophesy is made and it fails, the speaker of the prophesy should be regarded as a false prophet. While simple on the surface, the matter quickly becomes more complex. If the critics used this standards on the bible as they try to use it against Joseph Smith, they would soon dismiss much of the bible.

John Tvedtnes wrote:

Based on the false premise that "all you need is one false prophecy to have a false prophet," some critics have ignored many of Joseph Smith’s [fulfilled] prophecies and have zeroed in on ones they consider to be false. But they typically identify unfulfilled commandments, opinions, and counsel as "false prophecies." In doing so, they forsake the rules laid out in 18?lang=eng&id=p20-22#p20-22 Deuteronomy 18꞉20-22, ignoring the fact that the passage defines a false prophecy as one uttered in the name of the Lord which does not come to pass.

The main problem is that the critics do not apply these same standards to biblical prophecies. And when we try to show that, by these standards, many of the biblical prophets fail the tests they have set up for Joseph Smith, we are accused of "Bible-slamming." To those who ascribe more divinity to the Bible than to God, such a "sin" is worse than blasphemy itself. Honesty, however, impels us to submit the biblical prophets to the same tests as those applied to Joseph Smith.

For this reason, following the logic of the critics, we would have to conclude that Moses-to whom the revelation in Deuteronomy 18:20-22 is ascribed-was a false prophet. In Numbers 25꞉13, he said, in the name of the Lord, that Phinehas, his grand nephew, would hold the priesthood eternally. But if Hebrews 7꞉11-12 is correct, the Aaronic priesthood is not eternal. In this particular example, Moses fills the requirement for the test of Deuteronomy much more closely than does Joseph Smith in most of the examples of "false prophecies" cited by the critics. How, then, can Latter-day Saints accept both Joseph Smith and Moses as true prophets, regarding their prophecies as divinely-inspired? The answer lies in the fact that prophecy is typically conditional.

Step #1: Ensure that the account of the prophecy is authentic and is not based on hearsay

John Tvedtnes wrote:

This brings us to the fact that some critics quote secondary sources to illustrate "false prophecies" uttered by Joseph Smith. By their very definition, such sources cannot be considered totally accurate in their representation of the prophet’s words. One of the critics became rather selective in his use of secondary sources. Whenever the "prophecy" (some of them weren’t prophecies), in his judgment, failed, he was quick to pronounce the secondary source "authentic" or "reliable." But when it was fulfilled, he denounced it as coming from a secondary source and therefore unreliable. He even went so far as to term one failed prophecy as "reliable" because its source was "Mormon," while denouncing another fulfilled prophecy on the very same grounds.

For my part, I use all secondary sources with caution. They may give insights, but they cannot be considered with the same weight as known statements of Joseph Smith. This is true of journal accounts as well, for the reason that they are generally written after the fact (often at the end of the day) and are usually not reviewed by the person who made the statement.

Here is an example of how journals are sometimes misused: One critic quoted a revelation of Joseph Smith as found in Parley P. Pratt’s Autobiography (page 100), reading "surely Zion cannot fail, neither be moved out of her place." Elder Pratt, however, gave an abbreviated version of the revelation, which is found in D&C 97꞉19-20. In the original, we find that the words in question are what "the nations of the Gentiles shall say" of Zion at some point in the future. The secondary version was evidently used because it is more susceptible to interpretation as a "false prophecy."

Other problems arise when the critics cite a known forgery or a "false prophecy" by Joseph Smith whose only source is another anti-Mormon publication. Of a particular document, one critic wrote, "I believe this might be the most clear cut prophecy Joseph Smith ever gave." The document in question is a forgery prepared by Mark Hofmann. ...

One critic asked, "Do you really want to risk your eternal salvation on men who make statements like these?" To this, I reply, Can we risk our eternal salvation on the Bible, which reports that the sun and the moon stood still for Joshua (Joshua 10꞉12-14), when we know that this-like Quakers living on the moon-is a scientific impossibility? One might object that what the Bible describes is the standing still of the earth, rather than of the heavenly bodies (which is precisely the way the Book of Mormon puts it in Helaman 12꞉13-15). But the point is that the author of Joshua held an incorrect belief concerning the movement of celestial bodies, even if that does not invalidate the basic story he tells. So, too, Joseph Smith (and others) could have held false views concerning these same celestial bodies and yet told the truth about the revelations he received from God.

Step #2: Verify that the source claims that the prophecy came by revelation from God

Tvedtnes continued:

Under date of February 8, 1843, Joseph Smith wrote, "[I] visited with a brother and sister from Michigan who thought that >a prophet is always a prophet;’ but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such" (History of the Church 5:265). Prophets are, after all, human beings. The fact that they speak for God on occasion does not remove their free agency. Like all of us, prophets have opinions. Sometimes, these opinions are clearly set off, as Paul did in his first epistle to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 7꞉10,12,25,40). Joseph Smith occasionally used wording such as "this is my counsel" (History of the Church 1:455) or "I therefore warn" ( Nauvoo Neighbor, June 19, 1844). Elder Charles W. Penrose, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve and later a counselor in the First Presidency, wrote, "At the head of this Church stands a man who is a Prophet…we respect and venerate him; but we do not believe that his personal views or utterances are revelations from God."

More recently, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. (Doctrines of Salvation 3:203)

Similar thoughts were expressed by President Harold B. Lee in a European area conference:

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

In January 1970, six months after the first Apollo moon landing, Joseph Fielding Smith became President of the Church. Some anti-Mormon groups took delight in pointing out that he had, during his tenure as an Apostle, declared that it was "doubtful that man will ever be permitted to make any instrument or ship to travel through space and visit the moon or any distant planet." What these same critics failed to point out was that President Smith never attributed his belief to a revelation from God. Indeed, many of his generation held the same opinion, and all were surprised-but delighted-when proven wrong. Incorrect opinions do not make false prophets. Some of the Bible’s foremost prophets, such as Moses and Jeremiah, objected that their lack of eloquence made them unsuited to fill the role the Lord had cut out for them. God overruled these opinions and sent them on their way.

Step #3: Ensure that the account of the prophecy does not misrepresent or misinterpret what the prophet actually said.

To avoid misrepresenting or misinterpreting what a prophet said:

• Check sources: Revisit the source of the prophecy to see if there is any missing context.
• Check interpretation: Consider alternative interpretations. Have other Latter-day Saint or other Christians authors examined the prophecy in question? Have they offered alternative interpretations? Is there only one possible interpretation that is compelled by the source or are there multiple possible interpretations?
• Ask, 'Vision or prophecy?': John Tvedtnes wrote that

Visions are often highly symbolic and hence require interpretation. They cannot, therefore, necessarily be taken as "prophecy" in the sense of predictions of precise future events. As an example, we may consider Joseph Smith’s vision of the celestial kingdom (History of the Church 2:380-381). It has been highly criticized because in it he saw the twelve apostles of his day in the celestial kingdom. Of the twelve, however, five were excommunicated and never returned to the Church. This, the critics say, is evidence of a false prophecy. More likely, it is an indication of what the Lord intended for them, had they all remained faithful. If Joseph Smith is to be condemned as a false prophet on the basis of this vision, then we must condemn Jesus as a false prophet for similar reasons. Christ promised his twelve apostles that, when he returned to reign in glory, they would sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28). And yet Judas, who was one of the twelve at the time, later fell away and, losing his place as an apostle, was replaced by Matthias (Acts 1:15-26).12 If we take Jesus’ words literally, then either Judas will receive the reward (which makes the account in Acts wrong), or Jesus lied. On the other hand, if we do not hold Jesus to every word, should we not extend the same courtesy to Joseph Smith who, after all, was far less perfect than the Savior?

• Multiple ways to fulfillment: Latter-day Saints (like many other Christians) believe in the concept of dual fulfillment. That is: prophecies can be fulfilled in multiple ways.
• Check timeframe: Often, prophecies do not have a set timeframe for when they will be fulfilled. Sometimes they use language that's equivocal. For instance, prophecies may state that God will "soon" act in a certain way. But, as many know, our "soon" and God's "soon" may not be the same.
• Prophetic language: Tvedtnes observed that "[w]hen it comes to written revelations, the question of language becomes paramount. Was the revelation taken from the Lord’s dictation by the prophet? Or does it reflect the prophet’s language, reflecting the truths revealed to him by God? One could argue either case without clear resolution. But Latter-day Saints realize that the Lord "speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding" (2 Nephi 31꞉3; see also D&C 1꞉24). Thus, each prophet of the Old Testament wrote in his own dialect. Some of the later ones even used Aramaic or Persian words then being borrowed by the Hebrew language."

Step #4: Remember that most prophecies are contingent on conditions being met—even if that contingency is not made clear by the explicit text of the prophecy

Prophecy is virtully always conditional in the Latter-day Saint view. Before concluding that a prophesy is false, we should look for any stated or implied conditions for fulfillment.

John Tvedtnes wrote:

It was the Lord himself, through the biblical prophet Jeremiah, who explained the conditional nature of prophecy:

At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. (Jeremiah 18:7-10)

Jeremiah himself exemplified the principle of conditional prophecy when he told king Zedekiah, in the name of the Lord, that he would not go captive into Babylon if he followed the prophet’s instructions; otherwise, he would be taken captive and Jerusalem would be destroyed (Jeremiah 38꞉17-23). The conditional nature of prophecy explains why Jonah is not a false prophet. The Lord’s threat to destroy Nineveh within forty days (Jonah 3꞉4) was mitigated by the repentance of the city’s population (Jonah 3꞉4-9). "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not" (Jonah 3 10). Ironically, Jonah was upset by the fact that the prophecy was not fulfilled, and the Lord had to explain to him that the resultant repentance of "sixscore thousand persons" was more important than fulfilling the word (Jonah 4꞉1-11). From this story, it is obvious that the free-will actions of men play a role in the fulfillment of prophecy. Here are other examples from the Bible:

• The Lord told David that the men of Keilah "will deliver thee up [to Saul]" (1 Samuel 23꞉12). This did not happen, however, because David fled from the city (verses 13-14).
• Isaiah told king Hezekiah, "Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live." (2 Kings 20꞉1) But after the king pleaded with the Lord, the prophet delivered a new message, saying that fifteen years would be added to his life (verses 2-6).
• The Lord told Moses that he would destroy the Israelites and make of Moses a greater nation than they. When Moses protested that this would be wrong, the Lord changed his mind (Numbers 14꞉11-20).
• The Lord said through Elisha that the combined armies of Israel, Judah and Edom would "smite every fenced city" of Moab and that he would "deliver the Moabites also into your hand." But one city, Kir-hareseth, was not taken. When Mesha, the Moabite king, sacrificed his son on the city wall, the Israelites left and went home. The prophecy was not fulfilled because the Israelites would not cooperate with the Lord’s wishes.
• Through Ezekiel, the Lord declared that the Lebanese city of Tyre would be destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar, never to be rebuilt (Ezekiel 26, especially verses 4, 7, 12, 14). Though Nebuchadrezzar laid siege against Tyre from 598 to 586 B.C., he was never able to take the city.
• The Lord then told Ezekiel that, in compensation for his not taking Tyre, Nebuchadrezzar would be given the land of Egypt, (Ezekiel 29 17-10). Its people would be slain and its rivers dry up (Ezekiel 30꞉10-12; Ezekiel 32꞉11-15) and the land of Egypt would remain uninhabited for forty years (Ezekiel 29꞉11-13). But though Nebuchadrezzar defeated an Egyptian army in battle, he never conquered Egypt either.
• Isaiah, in his prophesy against Babylon (Isaiah 13꞉1), declared that the Medes would slay men, women and children and that Babylon would "be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation" (Isaiah 13:17-20). In 539 B.C., Cyrus, king of the Medes and Persians, took Babylon without bloodshed, and made it one of the principal cities of his empire. Babylon remained inhabited for centuries afterward.

It is in the light of the conditional nature of prophecy that we must consider some of Joseph Smith’s prophecies. For example, the missionary calling promised Thomas B. Marsh in D&C 112 was never fulfilled because he was excommunicated and forfeited his blessings. Critics have stated that if God really knew Marsh’s heart (verse 11), he would have known that he would apostatize and not be worthy of the promised blessings. The same argument has been used in regard to George Miller’s calling to the bishopric (D&C 124꞉20-21), eight years before he was disfellowshipped.

• By this same reasoning, God should not have promised a throne to David (1 Samuel 16꞉12-13; 2 Samuel 3꞉9-10; 1 Kings 2꞉4; 1 Kings 8꞉25; 1 Kings 9꞉5), since David, in future, would commit adultery and order the death of an innocent man (1 Samuel 11). This also brings up the question of Jesus’ promise to his twelve apostles: "Ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19꞉28). This promise was made before Judas betrayed the Master and he was obviously included among those who would sit on the "twelve thrones." How could Jesus have made such a promise to the one who would betray him, whom he termed "a devil" (John 6꞉70-71)? The answer seems obvious: at the time of the promises, Judas, Thomas B. Marsh and George Miller were faithful to the Lord. By their subsequent actions, they lost all claim to those promises.

Step #5: Remember the commandment "shall" and the predictive "shall"

One mistake people make in interpreting prophecies mistaking a commandment for a foretelling. That is because both may use "shall". There's obviously a difference between "thou shall not kill" (command) and "thou shall be in Arizona in four months" (foretelling of location).

Step #6: most prophecies can be considered "unreasonable" by some standard

John Tvedtnes wrote:

Some of the critics have included "unreasonable" prophecies in their lists of false prophetic utterances by Joseph Smith. The subjective nature of such a determination makes this procedure unacceptable. What is "unreasonable" to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another. For example, the prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah "contradicted" each other concerning an essential point, and yet were both right. Ezekiel had prophesied that king Zedekiah would go to Babylon but never see it (Ezekiel 12:13), while his contemporary Jeremiah prophesied that Hezekiah would be taken captive to Babylon (Jeremiah 32:5). But, in the end, both prophets proved true, for Zedekiah indeed went captive into Babylon, but did not see the city, for he had been blinded (2 Kings 25:7). Thus, we see that prophecies "impossible" of fulfillment have, in the course of time, proven true. Joseph Smith deserves at least the same kind of consideration.

Conclusion

We will use these principles to evaluate Joseph Smith's alleged prophecies.

First, however, we need to consider a question that may lurk behind many Christian critics of Joseph Smith. Although they search for "false prophecies" to discredit him, the underlying motive may be that they "know" that there cannot be any more prophets today. They believe the bible "says so," and thus Joseph must be a false prophet. Their evaluation of Joseph's prophecies are not intended, then, to ascertain if he is a true prophet. They have already decided that he is a false prophets on other grounds.

Are there not supposed to be any more prophets after Christ's day?

The belief that there would be no more prophets after Christ is firmly rooted in tradition, not the Bible

The belief that there would be no more prophets after Christ is rooted in tradition, not the Bible. The Bible teaches the opposite of this traditional belief. "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3꞉7, (emphasis added)) God has always had direct dealings with man, through the prophets and through revelation. "Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off?" (Jeremiah 23꞉23) This is the process God has used since the time of Adam. "As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began." (Luke 1꞉70) it is only logical, and biblically correct, to expect God to have the same relationship with man today.

Christianity claims that God does not change. This is a statement that Latter-Day Saints agree with. Yet, while making this claim, most of Christianity says God has changed because he does not now call prophets.

Only the living prophets are opposed

Those who oppose Joseph Smith as a prophet, do not oppose dead past prophets, but the living ones. Jesus himself noted the irony—the religious leaders opposed him most strongly. Christ understood that his opponents claimed to believe in the past prophets while rejecting a present-day messenger from God. Jesus described them as having the appearance of righteousness, yet were full of iniquity:

Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city (Matthew 23꞉28-34):

Many follow this pattern today—they proclaim a belief in Christ while denying living prophets.

Alleged false prophecies of Joseph Smith

Did Joseph Smith prophesy that he couldn't be killed within 5 years of August 1843?

It would appear that the letter written by Sarah Scott on 22 July 1844 is a blending of separate and distinct pieces of information and they have been assembled in order to support her view that Joseph Smith was a false prophet

Claim: Joseph Smith prophesied in August 1843 "that he could not be killed within five years from that time". Since he was killed less than one year later, some claim that his statement counts as a false prophecy and that he should be considered a false prophet.

The letter written by Sarah Scott on 22 July 1844 is likely a blending of separate and distinct pieces of information and they have been assembled—whether consciously or subconsciously—in order to support her view that Joseph Smith was a false prophet.

As always, we consider the original document in analyzing this claim:

Joseph also prophesied on the stand a year ago last conference that he could not be killed within five years from that time; that they could not kill him till the Temple would be completed, for that he had received an unconditional promise from the Almighty concerning his days, and he set Earth and Hell at defiance; and then said, putting his hand on his head, they never could kill this Child. But now that he is killed some of the Church say that he said: unless he gave himself up. My husband was there at the time and says there was no conditions whatever, and many others testify to the same thing.

Biases of the author

We note first that the author and her husband "were influenced by William Law to leave the Church in 1844" - close to the time when the document was composed. That does not mean that the report is false, but we need to account for the writer's bias.

Secondly, this letter is not an eyewitness account of what was said by Joseph. The writer stead cites someone else (her husband) who was an eyewitness and so the information second-hand. 

Thirdly, this information is being relayed about 11 months after the Prophet spoke, so memories may be more flawed. The author is also not clear about the dates—the sentence above should read: "a year ago [before] last conference"). The underlined portion of the letter accurately reflects what Joseph Smith said on 27 August 1843. 

The "five years" aspect is from an earlier statement

The 'five-year prophecy' is being included where it doesn't belong. On 12 January 1838 the Prophet met in council at his father’s house in Kirtland, Ohio. During a discussion about the dire circumstances caused by apostates and mobs – and in anticipation of his leaving for Missouri - Joseph Smith said: "One thing, brethren is certain, I shall see you again, let what will happen, for I have a promise of life five years, and they cannot kill me until that time is expired." Five years would expire by January 1843, and it is interesting that on 22 January 1843 the Prophet said: "I understand my mission and business. God Almighty is my shield and what can man do [see D&C 122:9] if God is my friend? I shall not be sacrificed until my time comes, then I shall be offered freely."

The idea of an "unconditional promise" with respect to the Prophet's "days" on the earth also appears to be a misapplication of information

The idea of an "unconditional promise" with respect to the Prophet's "days" on the earth also appears to be a misapplication of information. While the Prophet was languishing inside Missouri's Liberty Jail the Lord informed him in March 1839: "Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less" (D&C 122꞉9). These words were published in Nauvoo in 1840, and so we see how Sarah Scott or her informant could have either intentionally or unintentionally mixed them with a later statement.

Contemporary records do not support the claim

Sarah Scott's claim that on 27 August 1843 Joseph Smith said that nobody could kill him "till the Temple would be completed" is not supported by the notes taken by Willard Richards, Franklin D. Richards, and William Clayton.

And, at least three months prior to the composition of Scott's letter the Prophet had told a group of Saints, "There is something going to happen; I don't know what it is, but the Lord bids me to hasten and give you your endowment before the Temple is finished". Indeed, in 1839 Joseph Smith had prophesied his own death before the age of 40—which would have been on 23 December 1845. Knowing about these well-established claims from Joseph makes us more confident that Scott was misreporting or misrepresenting the matter.

This letter also discounts the idea that Joseph said he could not be killed unless he gave himself up

This letter also discounts the idea (testified to by some unidentified Church members) that Joseph said he could not be killed unless he gave himself up. Scott's husband was present at the 27 August 1843 meeting and did not hear any such thing. And it does not appear from contemporaneous notes that Joseph said this on that date. However, on 31 August 1842 Joseph Smith told a gathering of Relief Society sisters "that great exertions had been made on the part of [the Church's] enemies, but they had not accomplished their purpose—God had enabled him to keep out of their hands. . . . the Lord Almighty had preserv'd him . . . . He said he expected th[at] heavenly Father had decreed that the Missourians shall not get him - if they do, it will be because he does not keep out of the way."

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Letter, Sarah Scott to Calvin and Abigail Hall (parents), 22 July 1844, Nauvoo, Illinois. Published in George R. Partridge, ed., “The Death of a Mormon Dictator: Letters of Massachusetts Mormons, 1843–1848," New England Quarterly 9/4 (December 1936): 597.

Why did Joseph Smith say that David Patten would serve a mission when he was killed only six months later?

D&C 114 was not a prophecy, it was a mission call

It is claimed that Joseph Smith prophesied that David Patten would go on a mission (D&C 114꞉1), yet six months later Patten was killed in Missouri at the Battle of Crooked River.

"Thus saith the Lord"

Some critics have pointed to the "thus saith the Lord" phrase at the beginning Patten's call in D&C 114}1-2} proves that this was a prophecy. Other sections where "thus saith the Lord" was part of the revelation demonstrates that the phrase was not used exclusively for prophecies (as in D&C 87) but is also used in revelations where instructions (D&C 21, 44, 49, 50, 52, 75, 89, 91, etc.) callings (D&C 36, 55, 66, 69, 99, 100, 108, etc.), and reproof (D&C 61, 95) are given. More than half the time the phrase was used in the first verse. When used in the first verse, it appears to be an indication that what followed was the product of revelation.

Patten's call

Those who make this argument employ a misreading of the call to Patten and a double standard regarding prophecy to condemn Joseph Smith.

D&C 114 was not a prophecy, it was a mission call. Joseph Smith issued a call for David Patten to go on a mission the following spring. This call by revelation is not a prophecy that David would serve a mission, but an admonition to set all his affairs in order so that he could.

In any event, Patten's death would not change the instructional nature of that call. Joseph Smith declared that: To the "great Jehovah . . . the past, present, and future were and are, with Him, one eternal 'now'." Despite this, God still gives agency to us and to others who impact on our lives, which usage often precludes what would have happened if the Lord's will were done on earth as it is in heaven.

Biblical parallels

There are several Biblical parallels to David Patten's mission call, such as the calling of Judas as an Apostle. As one of the Twelve Apostles, Judas was promised by the Lord that he would sit on twelve thrones with the others and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19꞉28). Judas's choices never fulfilled this promise of the Lord. This doesn't make Christ a false prophet. Patten's death at the hands of Missourians was their doing, not his.

As D&C 124꞉49 says, if "their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings."

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 463, 617n21 ( Index of claims ) Institute for Religious Research Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 3) Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 7) Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 8)

Did Joseph Smith state that the moon was inhabited, and that it's inhabitants were dressed like Quakers?

This is not a quote from Joseph Smith, but rather a late, third-hand account of something that Joseph is supposed to have said

The source for this claim is not Joseph Smith himself; the first mention comes in 1881 in Oliver B. Huntington's journal, who attributed the information from Philo Dibble. So, we have a late, third-hand account of something Joseph is supposed to have said. Hyrum Smith and Brigham Young both expressed their view that the moon was inhabited.

A patriarchal blessing given to Huntington also indicated that "thou shalt have power with God even to translate thyself to Heaven, & preach to the inhabitants of the moon or planets, if it shall be expedient."

Huntington later wrote an article about the concept for a Church magazine:

As far back as 1837, I know that he [Joseph Smith] said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do—that they live generally to near the age of a 1,000 years.

He described the men as averaging nearly six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.

The idea of an inhabited moon or other celestial body was not foreign to at least some early LDS members. It is not clear whether the idea originated with Joseph Smith.

In the 1800s, the idea that the moon was inhabited was considered scientific fact by many

In any case, this idea was considered 'scientific fact' by many at the time. William Herschel, the discoverer of the planet Uranus, died in 1822. Herschel argued "[w]ho can say that it is not extremely probable, nay beyond doubt, that there must be inhabitants on the Moon of some kind or another?" Furthermore, "he thought it possible that there was a region below the Sun's fiery surface where men might live, and he regarded the existence of life on the Moon as 'an absolute certainty.'"

Other scientists announced that they had discovered "a lunar city with a collection of gigantic ramparts extending 23 miles in either direction."

The 1835 Great Moon Hoax added to the belief in lunar inhabitants

In addition to these pronouncements from some of the most prominent scientists of the day, a clever hoax in 1835 only added to the belief in lunar inhabitants.

John Herschel, son of the famous William, went to South Africa to study stars visible only in the southern hemisphere. This was the cause of considerable public interest, given Herschel's involvement.

On 23 August 1835, Richard Locke published the first article in the New York Sun of what purported to be reports from Herschel's observations. Over a total of six installments, Locke claimed that Herschel was reporting lunar flowers, forests, bison, goats, unicorns, bipedal tailless beavers who cooked with fire, and (most provocatively) flying men with wings:

They appeared to be constantly engaged in conversing, with much impassioned gesticulation; and hence it was inferred, that they are rational beings. Others, apparently of a higher order, were discovered afterwards. . . . And finally a magnificent temple for the worship of God, of polished sapphire, in a triangle shape, with a roof of gold.

These reports were widely believed and caused a minor sensation. They were carried in the Painsville Telegraph, adjacent to Mormon Kirtland. The Sun eventually hinted that the matter was a hoax:

Certain correspondents have been urging us to come out and confess the whole to be a hoax; but this we can by no means do, until we have the testimony of the English or Scotch papers to corroborate such a declaration.

Popular belief in lunar inhabitants persisted for decades after the hoax

No more than this was forthcoming, and the Painsville Telegraph made no mention of the possibility of a hoax. Popular belief in lunar inhabitants persisted for decades. Herschel initially found the episode amusing, but he eventually grew frustrated with having to continually explain to the public that the whole matter was a hoax, with which he had nothing to do: he would later refer "the whole affair as 'incoherent ravings'".

In a private letter, Hirschel's wife indicated how skillfully the hoax was carried out:

Margaret Herschel was more amused. She called the story "a very clever peice of imagination," and wrote appreciately ... "The whole description is so well clenched with minute details of workmanship...that the New Yorkists were not to be blamed for actually believing it as they did...."

Modern prophets and general authorities will sometimes cite newspaper articles or books to illustrate the points which they wish to make

Church publications did not shy from embracing later scientific findings on the matter:

1856

Desert News noted:

Proof that the Moon is not Inhabited.

"Dr. Scoresby, in an account that he has given of some recent observations made with the Earl of Rosse’s telescope, says: ‘With respect to the moon, every object on its surface of 100 feet was distinctly to be seen; and he had no doubt that, under very favorable circumstances, it would be so with objects 60 feet in height…. But no vestiges of architecture remain to show that the moon, is, or ever was, inhabited by a race of mortals similar to ourselves….. There was no water visible…."

1880

"As there is no air nor water on the moon, but very few changes can take place upon its surface. There can be no vegetation and no animals, and although many astronomers have brought their imaginations to bear upon this subject, and have given us descriptions of the beautiful scenery upon its surface, and have even peopled it with inhabitants, we have every reason to believe that it is as barren and lifeless as an arid rock."

Modern analogies

Modern prophets and general authorities will sometimes cite newspaper articles or books to illustrate the points which they wish to make. In doing so, they are not endorsing such articles or books as being prophetically correct in all particulars. Rather, they are using the science and information of their day to enhance their preaching of the gospel.

"Worlds without number"

LDS doctrine was not provincial, since it provided for "worlds without number" (Moses 1꞉33) created by Christ. These worlds held those who would require the gospel, since by Christ "the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." (D&C 76꞉24)

Information given to the 19th century Saints by the authorities of the day were consistent with these doctrines, and so they believed them, and occasionally mentioned them in a religious context.

As always, prophets and believers are products of their time. Biblical authors, for example, clearly accepted a geocentric (earth centered) cosmos, with a flat earth and heavens supported by four pillars.

Like the authors of the Bible, modern prophets are generally beholden to their era's scientific concepts, except where corrections in those concepts are needed to permit the gospel to be understood and applied. This does not mean, however, that prophets of any era do not receive revelation about matters of eternal significance.

Brigham Young on an inhabited moon.

Summary: Brigham seems to have derived a similar idea from similar influences.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Contender Ministries, Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves. Answers Tower to Truth Ministries, "50 Questions to Ask Mormons," towertotruth.net (accessed 15 November 2007). 50 Answers Jay Jacobson, "Three Reasons Not to Become a Mormon,": 7. Search for the Truth DVD (2007) Resources The God Makers (film, 1982) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 23.( Index of claims )

Did Joseph Smith claim at one time that Kirtland Safety Society notes would be "as good as gold"?

Joseph was likely being optimistic regarding the bank's future

Whatever one thinks of Joseph's conduct in connection with the Kirtland Safety Society, this promise, ironically, eventually came true.

• Brigham Young redeemed Kirtland Safety Society scrip for gold in Utah.
• Marvin S. Hill notes that, "Brigham Young needn't have gone to such pains to ensure that this prophecy was fulfilled. Today [1977] these notes are worth far more than the exchange rate between currency and gold."

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 199. ( Index of claims ) Wilhelm Wyl, Mormon Portraits Volume First: Joseph Smith the Prophet, His Family and Friends (Salt Lake City: Tribune Printing and Publishing Co., 1886), 35.

Did Joseph Smith give a false prophecy by claiming that queens would pay respect to the Relief Society within ten years?

The prophecy is clearly conditional on the continuing righteousness of the Relief Society

Such a record exists, although critics generally do not cite the entire text. Abanes, One Nation, for example, cites only: "I now prophecy that before ten years shall roll around, the queens of the earth shall come and pay their respects to this Society." Abanes then notes, "No queens have ever fulfilled this prophecy.".

Here is the prophecy in context, with several key phrases highlighted:

Females, if they are pure and innocent can come into the presence of God, for what is more pleasing to God than innocence; you must be innocent or you cannot come up before God. If we would come before God let us be pure ourselves. The devil has great power—he will so transform things as to make one gape at those who are doing the will of God—You need not be teasing men for their deeds, but let the weight of innocence be felt which is more mighty than a millstone hung about the neck. Not war, not jangle, not contradiction, but meekness, love purity, these are the things that should magnify us. Action must be brough[t] to light—iniquity must be purged out—then the vail will be rent and the blessings of heaven will flow down—they will roll down like the Mississippi river. This Society shall have power to command Queens in their midst—I now deliver it as a prophecy that before ten years shall roll around, the queens of the earth shall come and pay their respects to this Society—they shall come with their millions and shall contribute of their abundance for the relief of the poor—If you will be pure, nothing can hinder.

After this instruction, you will be responsible for your own sins. It is an honor to save yourselves—all are responsible to save themselves.

According to Joseph's own words, the prophecy is clearly conditional on the continuing righteousness of the Relief Society.

Critics omit the qualifier as they try to discredit Joseph.

Fulfillment of the prophecy

There are several schools of thought regarding this prophecy:

1. That fulfillment has been delayed.
2. That it has already been fulfilled.

We do not take a position on this issue, but present the various arguments here.

Was the fulfillment of the prophecy delayed?

If the prophecy remained unfilled, then it would be because the conditions set forth were not met. There is some evidence to support this position.

For example, it is known that Joseph received considerable trouble from his wife, Emma, as head of the Relief Society. Emma would not support plural marriage, and used the Relief Society to attempt to thwart Joseph's teaching of it. Joseph was frequently trying to draw people up to their own better potential and encourage people to prepare to behold the face of God—he gave similar reproofs to the men of the Church:

How vain and trifling have been our spirits, our conferences, our councils, our meetings, our private as well as public conversations—too low, too mean, too vulgar, too condescending for the dignified characters of the called and chosen of God, according to the purposes of His will, from before the foundation of the world! We are called to hold the keys of the mysteries of those things that have been kept hid from the foundation of the world until now. Some have tasted a little of these things, many of which are to be poured down from heaven upon the heads of babes; yea, upon the weak, obscure and despised ones of the earth. Therefore we beseech of you, brethren, that you bear with those who do not feel themselves more worthy than yourselves, while we exhort one another to a reformation with one and all, both old and young, teachers and taught, both high and low, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female; let honesty, and sobriety, and candor, and solemnity, and virtue, and pureness, and meekness, and simplicity crown our heads in every place; and in fine, become as little children, without malice, guile or hypocrisy.

However, in the case of the Relief Society prophecy, Joseph states, point blank, that "iniquity must be purged out," which implies that it has to be there to begin with. There were certainly apostates among the Relief Society.

Problems with the Relief Society

Brigham Young was not pleased about what the Relief Society leadership had done to oppose Joseph and to oppose plural marriage, and the associated difficulties which the Relief Society and their zeal to expunge impurity caused. (Joseph spoke to them about this also, see below.))

Hiatus for the Relief Society

Following the death of Joseph Smith, the Relief Society as an organization went on "hiatus," in part due to these concerns.

Brigham noted, one year after the martyrdom:

When I want Sisters or the Wives of the members of the church to get up Relief Society I will summon them to my aid, but until that time let them stay at home if you see Females huddling together, veto the concern, and if they say Joseph started it all tell them it is a damned lie for I know he never encouraged it.

Note that Brigham's issue is not with the existence of the Relief Society, but the "huddling together" to seek out iniquity. John Taylor gives us further background on why the organization was suspended,

The "reason why the Relief Society did not continue from the first organization was that Emma Smith the Pres. taught the Sisters that the principle of Celestial Marriage as taught and practiced by Joseph Smith was not of God."

Emma's opposition

It should be noted that critical authors Newell and Avery claim this is not true in the strict reading of the minutes—however, it is well known that Emma did everything she could to discourage people from following Joseph's teachings on plural marriage, both in what she said privately and publicly. Newell and Avery provide evidence of this tendency themselves when citing Emma Smith's announced plans, but don't draw the obvious conclusion:

"We [the Relief Society] intend to look into the morals of each other, and watch over each other…. All proceedings that regard difficulties should be kept among the members [of the Relief Society]…. None can object to telling the good but withhold the evil." Given human nature, Emma was demanding an impossible commitment from her members…

Eliza R. Snow's testimony

Even Eliza R. Snow felt it necessary to correct the impression that the Relief Society in Nauvoo had done "more harm than good," emphasizing that it "saved many lives." But, the mere fact that she needed to correct this impression should tell us something about how the Relief Society under Emma's tenure was seen—there were lives saved, but there was also a somewhat darker side that kept Brigham from reconstituting the organization for ten years, and made Eliza need to emphasize that it had been worth it, on balance, even with the problems.

Joseph expressed similar concerns

Joseph expressed his own reservations:

"You need not be teasing men for their deeds, but let the weight of innocence be felt which is more mighty than a millstone hung about the neck."—i.e., quit acting as a type of police on public morals. He spoke on this more than once; it was an on-going problem, and much of it was driven by Emma. (Joseph had previously spoken to the Relief Society and cautioned them about their zeal not being according to knowledge.

Joseph said that there were problems that had to be improved. This could be good evidence that in Emma's case, that the problem wasn't solved. Joseph repeatedly talked to them about judging the actions of others, minding their own business, sustaining the prophet, and so forth. The following remarks from 28 April 1842 are from the same discourse as the prophecy under consideration:

• "He exhorted the sisters always to concentrate their faith and prayers for, and place confidence in their husbands, whom God has appointed for them to honor, and in those faithful men whom God has placed at the head of the Church to lead His people; that we should arm and sustain them with our prayers; for the keys of the kingdom are about to be given to them, that they may be able to detect everything false; as well as to all the Elders who shall prove their integrity in due season."

• [Joseph] "said the same aspiring disposition will be in this Society, and must be guarded against; that every person should stand, and act in the place appointed, and thus sanctify the Society and get it pure (italics added)."

• [Joseph continued] "saying everyone should aspire only to magnify his own office and calling....and said, don't be limited in your views with regard to your neighbor's virtue, but beware of self-righteousness, and be limited in the estimate of your own virtues, and not think yourselves more righteous than others; you must enlarge your souls towards each other, if you would do like Jesus, and carry your fellow-creatures to Abraham's bosom. He said he had manifested long-suffering, forbearance and patience towards the Church, and also to his enemies; and we must bear with each other's failings, as an indulgent parent bears with the foibles of his children (italics added)."

• "How precious are the souls of men! The female part of the community are apt to be contracted in their views. You must not be contracted, but you must be liberal in your feelings. Let this Society teach women how to behave towards their husbands, to treat them with mildness and affection. When a man is borne down with trouble, when he is perplexed with care and difficulty, if he can meet a smile instead of an argument or a murmur—if he can meet with mildness, it will calm down his soul and soothe his feelings; when the mind is going to despair, it needs a solace of affection and kindness. (italics added)"

• "When you go home, never give a cross or unkind word to your husbands, but let kindness, charity and love crown your works henceforward....Let your labors be mostly confined to those around you, in the circle of your own acquaintance, as far as knowledge is concerned, it may extend to all the world; but your administering should be confined to the circle of your immediate acquaintance, and more especially to the members of the Relief Society. Those ordained to preside over and lead you, are authorized to appoint the different officers, as the circumstances shall require."

Was the prophecy fulfilled?

One might ask, "What would it otherwise have taken to fulfill the prophecy? Was the Queen of England supposed to come to Nauvoo?" One could argue that the prophecy was in fact fulfilled. The queens in their midst were anointed as part of the endowment, revealed by Joseph at Nauvoo, and some had their election made sure before leaving for Utah. Joseph's speech to the Relief Society could be a foreshadowing of the temple ordinances they would later receive and that would qualify and prepare them to receive such.

Did Joseph Smith prophesy that Jesus Christ would return in 1890?

Jesus Christ stated that no mortals or angels would know when He would return

Said Jesus of his return:

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only (Matthew 24:36).

Because we do not know, we need to constantly be ready for his return, for "in such an hour as ye think not the Son of Man cometh" (Matthew 24:44).

In February 1835, Joseph Smith is reported to have said that "fifty-six years should wind up the scene"

B.H. Roberts in History of the Church notes the Prophet's remark in 1835 when he is reported to have said that,

...it was the will of God that those who went Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh—even fifty-six years should wind up the scene.

In Feb 1835, fifty six years in the future was February 1891. This would be shortly after Joseph's 85th birthday (he was born 23 December 1805).

Joseph made continuous reference to this date in light of a revelation which he reported. It is recorded in D&C 130꞉14-17, and it is clear that the revelation leaves the exact date of Christ's second coming much more uncertain. Whatever Joseph meant or understood by "wind up the scene," it must be interpreted in light of the revelation as he reported it, and the conclusions which he drew from it.

This particular revelation is a favorite of anti-Mormon critics. They have misquoted it, misreported it, misinterpreted it and misexplained it. Most often they simply do not complete the quote, making it appear that the Prophet said something he didn't.

Joseph acknowledged as he recorded this revelation that he didn't understand its meaning or intent

The revelation is reported in abbreviated form, and Joseph acknowledged as he recorded it that he didn't understand its meaning or intent:

I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter. (D&C 130꞉14-15).

Many critics end the quote at this point, and then they hope the reader will assume that the statement is a prophecy that the Savior would come in the year 1890 or 1891, since the Prophet Joseph was born in 1805. (Other critics do not even bother to cite D&C 130, and simply rely on the quote from the Kirtland Council Minute Book of 1835, reproduced in History of the Church.

Joseph expresses his uncertainty: "I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time"

However, if we continue further, we see how Joseph Smith himself understood the revelation, unfiltered through note-takers or critics who wish to explain his meaning:

I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face (D&C ꞉130).

The actual content of Joseph's prophecy—if personal opinion can be said to be prophecy—does not occur until the next verse:

I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.(D&C 130꞉17.)

Joseph's belief was correct—he Lord did not return to the earth for His Second Coming before that time.

At least twice, as is recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph saw the face of the Son of Man

But there are other aspects of fulfillment that should also be considered. We do not know when it was that the Prophet earnestly prayed to know the time of the Lord's coming. The context, (verse 13), shows that it may have taken place in 1832 or earlier. At least twice, as is recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph saw the face of the Son of Man. D&C 76꞉20-24 and D&C 110꞉2-10 both record appearances of the Lord Jesus Christ, either of which may constitute fulfillment of the Lord's prophetic promise. He may also have seen the Lord's face at the time of his death in 1844, as he pondered in D&C 130:16.

The History of the Church describes Joseph's return to the same ideas:

I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written—the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty-five years old.

Again, Joseph Smith doesn't say the Lord will come then, but that He will not come before that time. The return to his age 85 shows that all these remarks derive from the same interpretation of his somewhat opaque revelation from the Lord, who seems determined to tell his curious prophet nothing further.

Joseph denies that anyone knows an exact date

Later, Joseph Smith again prophesied on the subject of Christ's coming:

I also prophesy, in the name of the Lord, that Christ will not come in forty years; and if God ever spoke by my mouth, He will not come in that length of time. Brethren, when you go home, write this down, that it may be remembered. Jesus Christ never did reveal to any man the precise time that He would come. Go and read the scriptures, and you cannot find anything that specifies the exact hour He would come; and all that say so are false teachers.

This remark was made on 10 March 1844. It echoes a teaching given through Joseph in the Doctrine and Covenants in March 1831

And they have done unto the Son of Man even as they listed; and he has taken his power on the right hand of his glory, and now reigneth in the heavens, and will reign till he descends on the earth to put all enemies under his feet, which time is nigh at hand—I, the Lord God, have spoken it; but the hour and the day no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor shall they know until he comes. (D&C 49꞉6-7, emphasis added)

Thus, from the beginning to the end of his ministry, Joseph Smith denied that a man could or would know the date of the second coming of Christ. (Joseph's remarks may have been instigated by the intense interest among religious believers in William Miller's prophecy that Christ would return by 1843.)

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 127-8, 462, 464, 528n5, 617n13, 25–27(PB) ( Index of claims ) Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 102. ( Index of claims ) Contender Ministries, Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves. Answers Alice Felt Tyler, Freedom's Ferment (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1944), 95. G.T. Harrison, Mormons Are Peculiar People (New York: Vantage Press, Inc., 1954), xii, 114. George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "...but we called it celestial marriage" (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), 6, 9, 535. ( Index of claims , (Detailed book review)) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 418-419.( Index of claims ) Wesley P. Walters, "Mormonism," Christianity Today V/6 (19 December 1960): 9. Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 7) Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 8)

Was a "forged" prophecy about Stephen A. Douglas added to the History of the Church?

Joseph Smith prophesied that Stephen A. Douglas would run for the presidency four years before he actually did

Page one of Deseret News (24 Sept 1856). Material on Stephen A. Douglas, at it appears in the History of the Church is outlined in read.

Detail of the Stephen A. Douglas prophecy, printed on 24 September 1856. This was nearly a year before Douglas would 'turn against' the Saints, and more than four years before he was nominated as President of the United States.

Joseph Smith told Judge Stephen A. Douglas four years before he was nominated for the Presidency of the United States:

I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, that unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the State of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers, that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left, for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished; thereby perpetrating a foul and corroding blot upon the fair fame of this great republic, the very thought of which would have caused the high minded and patriotic framers of the Constitution of the United States to hide their faces with shame. Judge, you will aspire to the presidency of the United States; and if ever you turn your hand against me or the Latter-day Saints, you will feel the weight of the hand of Almighty upon you; and you will live to see and know that I have testified the truth to you; for the conversation of this day will stick to you through life.

The claim that this prophecy was added after the fact is false

As B.H. Roberts' editorial remark in the History of the Church noted:

There is, and can be no question about the prophecy preceding the event. The prophecy was first published in the Deseret News of September 24, 1856. It was afterwards published in England in the Millennial Star, February, 1859. The publication in the Deseret News preceding Douglas' Springfield speech, mentioned above, (June, 1857) by about one year, and about four years before Douglas was nominated for the presidency by the Charleston Democratic convention.

This paper is available in digital form on-line. Screenshots are included in this article.

Why did Joseph prophesy that the wicked "of this generation" would be swept from the face of the land and the Lost Ten tribes would be gathered?

The final and total return of the Ten Tribes is not required by the prophecy—only the preparation and preliminaries for their return

The destruction of the wicked was seen by those to whom the prophecy was given as fulfilled by the Civil War and its attendant destruction, and it was this that those living were commanded to avoid by fleeing to Zion and the safety of the gospel:

And now I am prepared to say by the authority of Jesus Christ, that not many years shall pass away before the United States shall present such a scene of bloodshed as has not a parallel in the history of our nation; pestilence, hail, famine, and earthquake will sweep the wicked of this generation from off the face of the land, to open and prepare the way for the return of the lost tribes of Israel from the north country. The people of the Lord, those who have complied with the requirements of the new covenant, have already commenced gathering together to Zion, which is in the state of Missouri; therefore I declare unto you the warning which the Lord has commanded to declare unto this generation, remembering that the eyes of my Maker are upon me, and that to him I am accountable for every word I say, wishing nothing worse to my fellow-men than their eternal salvation; therefore, "Fear God, and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come." Repent ye, repent ye, and embrace the everlasting covenant, and flee to Zion, before the overflowing scourge overtake you, for there are those now living upon the earth whose eyes shall not be closed in death until they see all these things, which I have spoken, fulfilled. Remember these things; call upon the Lord while He is near, and seek Him while He may be found, is the exhortation of your unworthy servant.

There are two aspects to the prophecy.

1. Destruction of the wicked (marked in blue.

These events were certainly seen by the nineteenth-century Saints as fulfilled. They saw the Civil War as the culmination of prophecies against wicked people in a wicked nation. For more information see:

• Civil War prophecy
• Attitude of Saints to Civil War prophecy

Those now living are to flee to Zion to avoid the scourge—i.e., the destruction, which certainly bypassed the Saints in Utah during the Civil War.

2. The preparation for the return of the ten tribes (marked in red.

The critics wish to say that Joseph prophesied the return of the Ten Tribes—but, he did not. He prophecied that those living would see those things necessary to "prepare the way" for the return of the tribes. The prophecy also noted (in green) that this gathering was already beginning as those who embraced the covenant gathered to Zion.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 461, 616 n. 10 ( Index of claims )

Why did Joseph Smith claim that Thomas B. Marsh, who later apostatized, would be "exalted," and that he would preach "unto the ends of the earth"?

This was a conditional prophesy, which was not fulfilled in Marsh's case because of his apostasy

Many feel that Marsh's replacement as President of the Quorum of the Twelve (Brigham Young) did fulfill this prophecy, especially in reference to the line which reads: "thy path lieth among the mountains, and among many nations." Had Marsh remained faithful, he and not Brigham would have directed the western exodus of the Saints to the Rocky Mountains. He also would have joined in the missions abroad conducted by Brigham.

Those who offer the criticism that this is a false prophecy generally do not cite the entire text

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, for example, cites only verses 3–4, 7–8, and 11.

In D&C 112꞉3-11, note the material highlighted in bold, which the author of One Nation Under Gods omits:

Nevertheless, inasmuch as thou hast abased thyself thou shalt be exalted; therefore, all thy sins are forgiven thee. Let thy heart be of good cheer before my face; and thou shalt bear record of my name, not only unto the Gentiles, but also unto the Jews; and thou shalt send forth my word unto the ends of the earth. Contend thou, therefore, morning by morning; and day after day let thy warning voice go forth; and when the night cometh let not the inhabitants of the earth slumber, because of thy speech. Let thy habitation be known in Zion, and remove not thy house; for I, the Lord, have a great work for thee to do, in publishing my name among the children of men. Therefore, gird up thy loins for the work. Let thy feet be shod also, for thou art chosen, and thy path lieth among the mountains, and among many nations. And by thy word many high ones shall be brought low, and by thy word many low ones shall be exalted. Thy voice shall be a rebuke unto the transgressor; and at thy rebuke let the tongue of the slanderer cease its perverseness. Be thou humble; and the Lord thy God shall lead thee by the hand, and give thee answer to thy prayers. I know thy heart, and have heard thy prayers concerning thy brethren. Be not partial towards them in love above many others, but let thy love be for them as for thyself; and let thy love abound unto all men, and unto all who love my name.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can see the material cautioning Marsh again pride—the cause of his apostasy and fall from Church leadership—as genuinely prophetic.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 463, 617 n. 20 ( Index of claims )

Why did Joseph describe the United Order in revelation as "everlasting" and "immutable and unchangeable" until Jesus comes?

The United Order is an "everlasting" covenant because it comes from God, reflects his purposes, and is attended by promised blessings for all who obey

This does not mean—just as with biblical examples which use identical language—that "everlasting" is a prophecy about its duration of practice or implementation.

The relevant scripture reads (color emphasis added for clarity):

1 Verily I say unto you, my friends, I give unto you counsel, and a commandment, concerning all the properties which belong to the order which I commanded to be organized and established, to be a united order, and an everlasting order for the benefit of my church, and for the salvation of men until I come—

2 With promise immutable and unchangeable, that inasmuch as those whom I commanded were faithful they should be blessed with a multiplicity of blessings;

3 But inasmuch as they were not faithful they were nigh unto cursing.

4 Therefore, inasmuch as some of my servants have not kept the commandment, but have broken the covenant through covetousness, and with feigned words, I have cursed them with a very sore and grievous curse.

5 For I, the Lord, have decreed in my heart, that inasmuch as any man belonging to the order shall be found a transgressor, or, in other words, shall break the covenant with which ye are bound, he shall be cursed in his life, and shall be trodden down by whom I will;

6 For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things—(D&C 104꞉1-6)

We note:

• the practice of the Order is not prophesied to be "immutable and unchangeable." Rather, the Lord says that the promise is "immutable and unchangeable"—and, that promise is that "inasmuch as those whom I commanded were faithful, they should be blessed with a multiplicity of blessings."
• the United Order is to be everlasting—that is, it is always the Lord's highest law. Temple-worthy Latter-day Saints promise to observe the law of consecration. They are not, at present, commanded to enter the United Order, but covenant to do so if asked.
• the Lord makes it clear (verses 3-6) that some might break the covenant, and suffer the penalty. Thus, failure to live the law is not failure of a prophecy, but failure to live a commandment.

Biblical parallels: similar uses of the term "everlasting" that describe the importance and efficacy of certain commandments or ordinances

There are similar uses of the term "everlasting" that describe the importance and efficacy of certain commandments or ordinances. Yet, Christians do not believe they are bound to continue to observe these ordinances and covenants at all historical times. For example (emphasis added in all cases):

• Aaron and the Levites are given an "everlasting priesthood throughout their generations" (Exodus 40:15, see also Numbers 25:13). Yet, modern day Christians (like many of our critics) do not believe that the only legitimate priestly authority persists with Levitical descendants, or that such descendants currently enjoy divine sanction.
• Circumcision is described as "a token of the covenant betwixt me and you" that "my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." Those who are not circumcised "shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant" (Genesis 17:10-14). Yet, modern Christians do not believe that circumcision continues to be binding or necessary.
• Likewise, the "bread for a memorial" is commanded to be "set...in order before the Lord continually," since it is "taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant" (Leviticus 24:8). Do the critics likewise believe that this ought to be continued in unbroken succession to the present for it to be a valid commandment from God?

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 462, 617 n. 14 ( Index of claims )

Did Joseph Smith prophesy that Zion, in Jackson County, Missouri, would be redeemed by September 1836?

There were many conditionals placed on this prophecy—its fulfillment relied on the members' faithfulness:

use every effort to prevail on the churches to gather to those regions and locate themselves, to be in readiness to move into Jackson county in two years from the eleventh of September next, which is the appointed time for the redemption of Zion. If—verily I say unto you—if the Church with one united effort perform their duties; if they do this, the work shall be complete....and if we do not exert ourselves to the utmost in gathering up the strength of the Lord's house that this thing may be accomplished, behold there remaineth a scourge for the Church, even that they shall be driven from city to city, and [p.146] but few shall remain to receive an inheritance; if those things are not kept, there remaineth a scourge also; therefore, be wise this once, O ye children of Zion! and give heed to my counsel, saith the Lord. (emphasis added)

Compare with:

• D&C 101꞉1-9- given on 16 December 1833 (History of the Church 1:458-464)
• D&C 103꞉1-12- given on 24 February 1834 (History of the Church 2:36-39)
• D&C 105꞉6-13 - given on 22 June 1834 (History of the Church 2:108-111)

Was Joseph Smith's prophecy that the Independence, Missouri temple "shall be reared in this generation" a failed prophecy?

On 20 July 1831 Joseph Smith recorded a revelation identifying Independence, Missouri, as "the center place; and a spot for the temple[.]" (D&C 57꞉3). Joseph and Sidney Rigdon dedicated a site for the temple on 3 August 1831. The following year, Joseph received another revelation concerning the gathering to Zion:

[T]he word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house (D&C 84꞉2-5, (emphasis added)).

The Saints were expelled from Jackson County in late 1833, before they could make any progress on the temple. Despite their best efforts, they were unable to return to reclaim their lands.

Critics of the Church charge that this is a false prophecy since the temple in Independence was never completed in Joseph Smith's generation.

Commandment, not Prophecy

The supposed "prophecy" was actually a commandment and the command may have already been fulfilled.

After the Saints settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, Joseph recorded another revelation rescinding the earlier revelation given to build the Independence temple:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings. ... Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God (D&C 124꞉49,51).

Thus, when Smith declared the "temple shall be reared in this generation," he meant this as a directive (compare to the ten commandments: "thou shalt.." and D&C 59꞉5-13) and thus D&C 84 is not actually a prophecy. Webster's 1828 dictionary noted of "shall":

In the second and third persons [i.e., when applied to another person], shall implies a promise, command or determination. "You shall receive your wages," "he shall receive his wages," imply that you or he ought to receive them; but usage gives these phrases the force of a promise in the person uttering them.

Thus, "shall" indicates a promise or command—and, Latter-day Saint theology (with its strong emphasis on moral agency) always holds that man is free to accept or reject the commandments or promises of God, and that God will often not overrule the free-agent acts of others which might prevent his people from obeying. In such cases, God rewards the faithful for their willingness and efforts to obey, and punishes the guilty accordingly.

Potential Fulfillment for the Commmandment?

Latter-day Saints have speculated that the commandment may have already been met.

D. Charles Pyle wrote:

Indeed, this verse was fulfilled—in Kirtland. Here is what was recorded for that event in 1836:

George A. Smith arose and began to prophesy, when a noise was heard like the sound of a rushing mighty wind, which filled the Temple, and all the congregation simultaneously arose, being moved upon by an invisible power; many began to speak in tongues and prophesy; others saw glorious visions; and I beheld the Temple was filled with angels, which fact I declared to the congregation. The people of the neighborhood came running together (hearing an unusual sound within, and seeing a bright light like a pillar of fire resting upon the Temple), and were astonished at what was taking place. (History of the Church, 2:428)

See also Section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Most people who read the above verse in the above section of the Doctrine and Covenants assume that verse 5 has to refer only to the temple that was to be built in the center place of that time. However, all that is required is that a temple be built and that certain events happen in order to meet the conditions of this portion of the prophecy.

Trouble with [anti-Mormon] argumentation is that the prophecy was fulfilled, even if the location of the fulfillment was moved due to the conditional nature of prophecy and of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Bible is filled with such contingent prophecies. However [many] critics of the Church . . . take the Doctrine and Covenants out of context. Building a temple there would require the Saints to remain there in the center place. However, remaining in the center place was contingent by nature. Reading a number of sections of the Doctrine and Covenants shows the conditional nature of their stay there. The Saints failed to live up to the expectations and requirements to stay there. Therefore, they were driven out. ...

The Saints were building the city. The temple site had already been dedicated and foundational cornerstones laid the year previous. Note also the past tense of the latter part of verse 3. However, verse 2, as already noted, was to be tempered by the contingent nature of sections of the Doctrine and Covenants surrounding Section 84, particularly Section 58 and the Sections numbering in the 100s. Note the following verses from Section 58:

Behold, verily I say unto you, for this cause I have sent you—that you might be obedient, and that your hearts might be prepared to bear testimony of the things which are to come; And also that you might be honored in laying the foundation, and in bearing record of the land upon which the Zion of God shall stand; ...:For verily I say unto you, my law shall be kept on this land. ...

Who am I that made man, saith the Lord, that will hold him guiltless that obeys not my commandments? Who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised and have not fulfilled? I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing. Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above. And now, verily, I say concerning the residue of the elders of my church, the time has not yet come, for many years, for them to receive their inheritance in this land, except they desire it through the prayer of faith, only as it shall be appointed unto them of the Lord. For, behold, they shall push the people together from the bends of the earth. ...

And I give unto my servant Sidney Rigdon a commandment, that he shall write a description of the land of Zion, and a statement of the will of God, as it shall be made known by the Spirit unto him; And an epistle and subscription, to be presented unto all the churches to obtain moneys, to be put into the hands of the bishop, of himself or the agent, as seemeth him good or as he shall direct, to purchase lands for an inheritance for the children of God. For, behold, verily I say unto you, the Lord willeth that the disciples and the children of men should open their hearts, even to purchase this whole region of country, as soon as time will permit. Behold, here is wisdom. Let them do this lest they receive none inheritance, save it be by the shedding of blood. And again, inasmuch as there is land obtained, let there be workmen sent forth of all kinds unto this land, to labor for the saints of God. Let all these things be done in order; and let the privileges of the lands be made known from time to time, by the bishop or the agent of the church. And let the work of the gathering be not in haste, nor by flight; but let it be done as it shall be counseled by the elders of the church at the conferences, according to the knowledge which they receive from time to time.

Note the words concerning "many years" in the afore-cited revelation? As can be seen, this above revelation shows some interesting things concerning this land and even was prescient concerning what would come in this region as well as what people would say when the Lord revokes and takes blessings away due to failure to keep the law of God. Did this not indeed happen? Had not it indeed been seen in those days by those who left the Church? And, is not it now being fulfilled by every single critic who has written concerning Section 84 and the land of Zion?

D&C 84꞉4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.

The Saints did begin gathering to this location and building the city. They were driven out before the city could be completed because they had failed to live up to expectations for remaining there as a people. Again, see the context of the Doctrine and Covenants sections preceding and succeeding Section 84, particularly those numbering in the 100s. The Saints did not keep the conditions and were driven out. They were told to keep quiet of these things and not to boast, as well as keep the law of God concerning this land. They failed in all these things and were driven out as promised in a following revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants. See, for example, Section 97:26. This forced a move of locations for the building of a temple in that generation. . . . Suffice it to say, that it still was in the Lord's plan to build a temple within that generation.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), Chapter 9. ( Index of claims ) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 420-421.( Index of claims ) Tower to Truth Ministries, "50 Questions to Ask Mormons," towertotruth.net (accessed 15 November 2007). 50 Answers Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 3) Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 7) Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 8)

Is the prophecy concerning OIiver Granger contained in section 117 of the Doctrine and Covenants an example of a false prophecy?

Figure 1: Headstone of the grave of Oliver Granger in Kirtland, Ohio.

Joseph received a revelation on 8 July 1838 "concerning the immediate duties of William Marks, Newel K. Whitney, and Oliver Granger" (D&C 117). The revelation written in Far West Missouri, and was addressed as a letter to the three men, all living at the time around Kirtland, Ohio:

The Lord made clear that Marks and Whitney were to relocate to Missouri before winter (117:1-2). Once in Missouri they would preside over the Saints in their respective callings…To expedite their move [Marks' and Whitney's], the Lord instructed that Oliver Granger be dispatched to Kirtland to act as an agent for the First Presidency in settling some of their business affairs…Oliver Granger labored to resolve the Church’s unpaid debts in Kirtland until his death in August 1841. He succeeded in settling the affairs of the First Presidency to the satisfaction of their creditors. One of them wrote, 'Oliver Granger’s management in the arrangement of the unfinished business of people that have moved to Far West, in redeeming their pledges and thereby sustaining their integrity, has been truly praiseworthy, and has entitled him to my highest esteem, and every grateful recollection.’

Concerning Oliver Granger specifically:

I remember my servant Oliver Granger; behold verily I say unto him that his name shall be had in sacred remembrance from generation to generation, forever and ever, saith the Lord. Therefore, let him contend earnestly for the redemption of the First Presidency of my Church, saith the Lord; and when he falls he shall rise again, for his sacrifice shall be more sacred unto me than his increase, saith the Lord (D&C 117꞉12-13).

Critics of the Church claim that this represents an example of a false prophecy by Joseph Smith since, today, members do not hold any sort of special occasion for the "sacred remembrance" of Oliver’s assistance to the First Presidency.

"Sacred Remembrance" as remembered in the canon

The first interpretive possibility is that "sacred remembrance" refers to humans remembering Granger. If this is true of the revelation, then canonizing his revelation holds Granger’s name available to all members of the Church. His contributions to building up the Church are not forgotten. Communities of worship, and especially Jews and Christians have used the canon as a means of collective remembrance and shared value for hundreds of years. This possibility fulfills the revelation’s injunction to hold Oliver Granger in sacred rememberance.

"Sacred Remembrance" as divine regard

The second interpretive possibility is that "sacred remembrance" refers to divine remembrance and regard for Granger’s efforts.

John Tvedtnes writes:

Several critics have pointed to D&C 117꞉12-15 as a "false prophecy" because Oliver Granger’s name is unfamiliar to most Latter-day Saints despite the fact that the Lord said "that his name shall be had in sacred remembrance from generation to generation, forever and ever" (verse 12). It seems unlikely that the memory of any mortal can be called "sacred," so the words "sacred remembrance" most likely refer to the fact that the Lord would remember him. After all, the verse begins with the Lord saying, "I remember my servant Oliver Granger."

Robert S. Boylan has added scriptures from the bible as evidence for the strength of Tvedtnes’ argument of interpreting this verse as divine remembrance instead of human rememberance. "Indeed," Boylan writes, "often Yahweh in the Old Testament is said to ‘remember’ things such as his covenant with people, showing this concept of divine remembrance. For a good discussion, see Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, especially his analysis of αναμνησις ('remembrance/memory') in Luke 22 and 1 Cor 11."

Boylan continues:

With respect to αναμησις, the term appears five times in the Septuagint [Greek translation of the Old Testament]. Four of these five instances are within the sense of priestly sacrifice; the exception is Wisdom of Solomon 16:6. The NRSV translates the verse as follows:

They were troubled for a little while as a warning, and received a symbol of deliverance to remind (αναμνησις) them of your law's command.

The other instances of this term in the Septuagint are Leviticus 24:7; Numbers 10:10; Psalms 38:1 [Septuagint 37:1] and 70:1 [Septuagint 69:1]), translating the Hebrew terms אַזְכָּרָה (Lev 24:7); זִכָּרוֹן  (Num 10:10) and הַזְכִּיר (Psa 38:1; 70:1). The NRSV captures the original language text rather well:

• You shall put frankincense with each row, to be a token offering for the bread, as an offering (αναμνησις) by fire to the Lord. (Leviticus 24:7)

• Also on your days of rejoicing, at your appointed festivals, and at the beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over your sacrifices of well-being; they shall serve as a reminder (αναμνησις ) on your behalf before the Lord your God: I am the Lord your God. (Numbers 10:10)

• A Psalm of David, for the memorial offering (αναμνησις). . . (Psalms 38:1)

• To the leader. Of David, for the memorial offering (αναμνησις). . . (Psalms 70:1).

All of these are instances wherein God is 'reminded' of His covenant via sacrifice.

Additional passages supporting the ‘divine remembrance’ concept include:

• And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. (Genesis 9:15-16)

• And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. (Exodus 2:24)

• And I have also heard the groaning of my children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. (Exodus 6:5)

• Then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember, and I will remember the land . . . but I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the Lord. (Leviticus 26:42, 45)

• He hath remembered his covenant forever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. (Psalms 105:8)

• And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies. (Psalms 106:45)

• Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee and everlasting covenant. (Ezekiel 16:60)

• Thus he has shown the mercy promised to our ancestors, and has remembered his holy covenant. (Luke 1:72, NRSV)

The evidence discussed above can be summed up with the words of the Psalmist:

Remember all thy offerings, and accept thy burnt sacrifice; Selah. (Psa 20:3)

All of this strongly supports Tvedtnes’ reading of D&C 117:12.

Responding to an attempt to discredit Tvedtnes' argument

There was an attempt to respond to and refute Tvedtnes' argument. The critic wrote:

Tvedtnes’ argument also suffers from the fact that the term "sacred remembrance" has frequently been used to refer to HUMAN remembrance: B. H. Roberts, in a Pioneer Day address in 1886 said (emphasis added in all quotations):

"My Brethren and Sisters: We have met on this occasion to bear witness to the world that we hold in sacred remembrance the entrance of the Pioneers into this region."

Joseph Smith said:

". . . our circumstances are calculated to awaken our spirits to a sacred remembrance of everything, ..." (DHC, Vol. 3, p. 290).

Writing from Liberty Jail, he wrote to Bishop Partridge:

"Our situation is calculated to awaken our minds to a sacred remembrance of your affection" (Times & Seasons, 1:7:99).

Later in the same letter he wrote:

"… [we] send our respects to fathers, mothers, wives, and children, brothers and sisters, and be assured we hold them in sacred remembrance." ([History of the Church] 3:297-298)

In a letter to Major-General Law (August 14, 1842) he wrote:

"And will not those who come after hold our names in sacred remembrance?" ([History of the Church] 5:94)

Orson Pratt, in commenting on Ezekiel 37:11, said:

"…in other words, our forefather, whose children we are, and whose names are held in sacred remembrance by us, are all dead." ([Journal of Discourses] 20:17).

Boylan responded:

Firstly, the impression that [he] is trying to give (that all instances of "[sacred] remembrance" refers to human, not divine, remembrance) is fallacious. Note D&C 127:9, dated September 1, 1842:

And again, let all the records be had in order, that they may be put in the archives of my holy temple to be held in remembrance from generation to generation, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Furthermore, it ignores the biblical evidence of God "remembering" things, as discussed previously, language which did influence early Latter-day Saints.

Finally, [his] argument suffers from a structural fallacy, that of the excluded middle. If one maps out his argument, it would go something like this:

First Premise: Some instance of "[sacred] remembrance" refers to human remembrance.

Second Premise: D&C 117:12 contains the term, "sacred remembrance."

Conclusion: D&C 117:12 refers to human remembrance.

To those familiar with formal logic, the fallacy is evident: [][Logical_fallacies/Page_4#Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle|the fallacy of undistributed middle]. This means that the predicates in both the major and minor premises do not exhaust all the occurrences of "[sacred] remembrance," and would not necessitate the interpretation of "human remembrance" as [he] argues for. At best, it could refer to human remembrance, but the evidence discussed in this study shows that this is not the most exegetically sound reading.

In any case, either reply suffices to dispel the idea that this is a false prophesy.

Is Doctrine and Covenants 84:114 warnings to New York, Albany, and Boston an example of a false prophecy?

Figure 1. Portrait of Newel K. Whitney.

On 22 and 23 September 1832, Joseph Smith received a revelation after several of his followers had returned from proselyting missions in the eastern United States. Part of this revelation contains a prophecy that assigns Newel K. Whitney, the presiding bishop of the Church, to a mission in New York City, Albany, and Boston. This revelation is canonized as Doctrine and Covenants 84. The 114th verse of this revelation reads as follows:

114 Nevertheless, let the bishop go unto the city of New York, also to the city of Albany, and also to the city of Boston, and warn the people of those cities with the sound of the gospel, with a loud voice, of the desolation and utter abolishment which await them if they do reject these things.

Figure 2. Greek depiction of Second Coming of Jesus Christ circa 1700 A.D. Public domain.

Critics of the Church claim that this is a false prophecy since the cities of Albany, Boston, and New York still remain without "desolation and utter absolishment" close to 200 years after this revelation was given and recorded.

The text itself refers to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Doctrine and Covenants tells us that "[w]hen the Lord comes, every corruptible thing will be consumed, the elements will 'melt with fervent heat,' and the works of the world will be burned up (2 Pet. 3:10-12; D&C 101:24-25)." The Doctrine and Covenants also tells us that "all the wicked will be destroyed by burning" (Mal. 4:1; D&C 29:9; 64:23-24; 133:63-64).""

The "wicked", according to this very revelation, are those that "come not unto" and/or "receiveth not [the] voice" of the Savior nor the people that he sends to bear testimony of his Gospel.

Concerning the Second Coming, the Doctrine and Covenants tells us that "the hour and the day no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor shall they know until he comes."

It should be noted that the prophecy is contingent upon repentance (i.e. "if they do reject these things.") and that this revelation should not be taken to mean that all of Boston, New York, and Albany will be destroyed. It means that those that reject the Gospel will be and that can include individual people from those cities.

This argument should remind all that prophecy may take time to interpret correctly and that the timeframe that we assign to the fulfillment of a prophecy may not be the timeframe the Lord has in mind for it. We should remember to read the scriptures contextually as well as holistically; that is, read the scriptures in their historical context as well as read everything that scripture has to say on any given topic.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism—D&C 84 and the destruction of New York, Boston, and Albany

Critical sources	Dick Baer
Past responses	Robert S. Boylan, "Oliver Granger and ‘Sacred Rememberance’," (13 May 2020). John A. Tvedtnes, "A Reply to Dick Baer."

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism—Alleged false prophecies of Joseph Smith

Critical sources

Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 124. ( Index of claims ) Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), Chapter 9. ( Index of claims ) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 417.( Index of claims )

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

Response to claim: 35 - The author states that Joseph Smith predicted that the Lord would come within “fifty-six years”

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that Joseph Smith predicted that the Lord would come within “fifty-six years” and that this “prophecy never came true either.”

Author's sources: Joseph Smith, ‘’History of the Church’’, vol. 2 (Salt Lake Cithy: Deseret Book Co., 1978), 182.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The authors do not note that Joseph wasn't really sure what this meant.

Question: Did Joseph Smith prophesy that Jesus Christ would return in 1890?

Response to claim: 35 - The 1835 edition of the Doctrines and Covenants contained “major revisions to already published revelations"

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The 1835 edition of the Doctrines and Covenants contained “major revisions to already published revelations, [and] added revelations given since the last printing.”

Author's sources: Not provided.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Joseph Smith did indeed edit previous revelations.

Ensign, "Great and Marvelous Are the Revelations of God"

Gerrit Dirkmaat,  Ensign, (January 2013)

Many Revelations Were Later Revised by Joseph Smith through Inspiration. Over the course of the first five years of the Church, Joseph and others under his direction made changes and corrections to some of the early revelation texts in an attempt to more closely portray the intent of the revelation. Other times, especially as the revelations were being prepared for publication, Joseph was inspired to update the contents of the revelations to reflect a growing Church structure and new circumstances. At times this process resulted in substantial additions to the original text. As early as November 1831, a Church conference resolved that “Joseph Smith Jr. correct those errors or mistakes which he may discover by the Holy Spirit while reviewing the revelations and commandments and also the fullness of the scriptures.”

Click here to view the complete article

Response to claim: 36 - The 1835 Doctrine and Covenants included a declaration that “one man should have one wife”

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The 1835 Doctrine and Covenants included a declaration that “one man should have one wife” in response to accusations of “the crime of fornication, and polygamy.” This was after Joseph began practicing plural marriage in secret.

Author's sources: Doctrine and Covenants (Kirtland, Ohio: F.G. Williams & Co., 1835), 251.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

The section on marriage was replaced with Section 132 after the practice of plural marriage was made public.

< Back to FAIR Answers Index

V

Articles about Plural marriage

Doctrinal foundation of plural marriage	Purpose of plural marriage Plural marriage as a requirement for exaltation Plural marriage in early Christianity Plural marriage in the Book of Mormon Plural marriage and the Bible
Introduction of plural marriage	Initiation of the practice of plural marriage 1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership Divine manifestations to plural wives and families Plural marriage and the law
Questions about Joseph Smith and plural marriage	Initiation of the practice of plural marriage Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership Joseph Smith's marriages to young women Did Joseph Smith coerce women to marry him? Mormon women refusing offers of plural marriage Polyandry Joseph Smith and children through plural marriage Marrying other men's wives? Joseph Smith hiding plural marriages from his first wife, Emma Emma Smith's reaction to Joseph Smith's plural marriages Emma Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 132 Did Joseph have lustful motives for practicing polygamy? Did Joseph Smith send men on missions in order to steal their wives? Did Joseph Smith practice polygamy for the purpose of monetary gain?
John C. Bennett and Nauvoo polygamy	Bennett before Nauvoo Bennett and Prostitution Brothel at Nauvoo Rise and Fall of Bennett Sarah Pratt Nancy Rigdon Sidney Rigdon
Plural wives of Joseph Smith	Divine manifestations to plural wives and families Emma Smith Fanny Alger Louisa Beaman Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell Sarah Kingsley Howe Cleveland Agnes Moulton Coolbrith Elizabeth Davis Goldsmith Brackenbury Durfee Esther Dutcher Hannah S. Ells Olive Grey Frost Desdemona Catlin Wadsworth Fulmmer Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris Clarissa Reed Hancock Elvira Annie Cowles Holmes Sarah Maryetta Kingsley Howe Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde Vienna Jacques Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Almera Johnson Helen Mar Kimball Maria Lawrence Sarah Lawrence Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner Malissa Lott Sylvia Sessions Lyon Martha McBride Eliza Partridge Emily Partridge Rhoda Richards Ruth Vose Sayers Patty Bartlett Sessions Delcena Diadamia Johnson Sherman "Miss Smith" Mary Heron Snider Eliza R. Snow Lucy Walker Sarah Ann Whitney Nancy Maria Winchester Flora Ann Woodworth Fanny Young
Plural marriage in Utah	Difficulties with plural marriage Brigham Young's statements regarding plural marriage John Taylor's 1886 revelation Latter-day Saints and divorce in the nineteenth century Prevalence of plural marriage in Utah
End of plural marriage	The First Manifesto Official Declaration Number 1 Plural marriage practiced after the First Manifesto The Church of Jesus Christ and plural marriage today

V

Articles about the Doctrine and Covenants

The Doctrine and Covenants

Adding sections to the Doctrine and Covenants Overview of changes to the Doctrine and Covenants Examples of changes to the Doctrine and Covenants Lectures on Faith Possible contradictions in the Doctrine and Covenants Oliver Cowdery and the "rod of nature" The Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Mormon geography 1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy Remission of sins before or after baptism?

Why did the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants include a statement of marriage that denied the practice of polygamy at a time when some were actually practicing it?

Polygamy was not being taught to the general Church membership at that time

The Article on Marriage was printed in the 1835 D&C as section 101 and in the 1844 D&C as section 109. The portion of the Article on Marriage relevant to polygamy states:

Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.

This was true—the Church membership generally was not being taught plural marriage, and were not living it at that time.

The statement itself was not changed between the 1835 and 1844 editions of the D&C

In fact, the statement remained in the D&C until the 1876 edition, even though plural marriage had been taught to specific individuals since at least 1831, practiced in secret since 1836, and practiced openly since 1852. The matter of not removing it in 1852 was simply due to the fact that a new edition of the D&C was not published until 1876.

The available evidence suggests that Joseph Smith supported its publication

While some have suggested that the article was published against Joseph's wishes or without his knowledge, the available evidence suggests that he supported its publication. It was likely included to counter the perception that the Mormon's practice of communal property (the "law of consecration") included a community of wives.

The statement was not a revelation given to Joseph Smith - it was written by Oliver Cowdery

This statement was not a revelation given to Joseph Smith—it was written by Oliver Cowdery and introduced to a conference of the priesthood at Kirtland on 17 August 1835. Cowdery also wrote a statement of belief on government that has been retained in our current edition of the D&C as section 134. Both were sustained at the conference and included in the 1835 D&C, which was already at the press and ready to be published. Joseph Smith was preaching in Michigan at the time Oliver and W.W. Phelps introduced these two articles to the conference; it is not known if he approved of their addition to the D&C at the time, although he did retain them in the 1844 Nauvoo edition, which argues that he was not opposed to them. (Phelps read the article on marriage, while Cowdery read the one on government.)

Some have suggested that the manner in which the conference was called suggests that Joseph was not the instigator of it, since it seems to have been done quite quickly, with relatively few high church leaders in attendance:

The General Assembly, which may have been announced on only twenty-four hours' notice, was held Monday, August 17[, 1835]. Its spur-of-the-moment nature is demonstrated by observing that a puzzling majority of Church leaders were absent. Missing from the meeting were all of the Twelve Apostles, eight of the twelve Kirtland High Council members nine of the twelve Missouri High Council members, three of the seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventy, Presiding Bishop Partridge, and...two of the three members of the First Presidency.

However, there is also some evidence that an article on marriage was already anticipated, and cited four times in the new D&C's index, which was prepared under Joseph's direction and probably available prior to his departure. Thus, "if a disagreement existed, it was resolved before the Prophet left for Pontiac."

Was Oliver Cowdery aware that some in the Church were practicing polygamy in 1835 at the time he authored the "Article on Marriage"?

Oliver Cowdery, the author of the 1835 "Article on Marriage," was aware that some in the Church were practicing polygamy at the time that the statement was published

On July 7, 1878, Joseph F. Smith discussed Oliver's awareness of polygamy at the time of this publication:

To put this matter more correctly before you, I here declare that the principle of plural marriage was not first revealed on the 12th day of July, 1843. It was written for the first time on that date, but it had been revealed to the Prophet many years before that, perhaps as early as 1832. About this time, or subsequently, Joseph, the Prophet, intrusted this fact to Oliver Cowdery; he abused the confidence imposed in him, and brought reproach upon himself, and thereby upon the church by "running before he was sent," and "taking liberties without license," so to speak, hence the publication, by O. Cowdery, about this time, of an article on marriage, which was carefully worded, and afterwards found its way into the Doctrine and Covenants without authority. This article explains itself to those who understand the facts, and is an indisputable evidence of the early existence of the knowledge of the principle of patriarchal marriage by the Prophet Joseph, and also by Oliver Cowdery.

However, there continues to be debate about whether Oliver Cowdery knew about--or prematurely practiced--plural marriage in the 1830s. Oliver would learn about the Fanny Alger marriage, but his reaction at the time seems to have been wholly negative.

The original D&C 101 article outlined the general practice of performing a Latter-day Saint wedding, explained LDS beliefs about the marriage relationship, and denied that the Saints were practicing polygamy.

Was the practice of polygamy general knowledge among Latter-day Saints in 1835 when the "Article on Marriage" was published?

Knowledge of the practice of polygamy among the Saints was limited prior to the 1840s

Some have argued that rumors of "polygamy" may already have been circulating as a result of the Prophet teaching the concept to some of his close associates. However, Brian Hales has argued that there are few if any extant attacks on Joseph or the Saints about polygamy prior to the 1840s:

...if the article was designed to neutralize reports about Joseph Smith and his alleged "crimes," polygamy would not have been included because that allegation was not made then nor at any other time during the Kirtland period according to any documentation currently available. In other words, assuming that the denial of polygamy in the "Marriage" article [of D&C 101] was specifically tied to rumors of Joseph Smith's behavior is problematic, unless other corroborating evidence can be located.

Charges of polygamy or "free love" or having wives in common were often made against new or little-known religious or social groups

On the other hand, charges of polygamy or "free love" or having wives in common were often made against new or little-known religious or social groups. As Hales reports:

Some [nineteenth-century utopian societies] experimented with novel marital and sexual practices, which focused suspicion on all the groups....Accordingly, early Latter-day Saint efforts to live the law of consecration, even though it sustained traditional monogamy, were instantly misunderstood....

John L. Brooke...wrote: "Among the non-Mormons in Ohio there were suspicions that the community of property dictated in the 'Law of Consecration' included wives."...

It seems plausible, even likely, that beginning in 1831, some uninformed individuals assumed that the law of consecration included a community of wives as one of its tenets, even publishing such claims, although there is no indication that this is how the Mormons themselves interpreted the law of consecration. Understandably, Church leaders would actively seek to deny such untrue allegations in a document on marriage to be included in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

Gilbert Scharffs notes:

The original Section 101 (never claimed as a revelation but approved as a statement of belief) did state that monogamy was the practice of the Church at that time. The section was not written by Joseph Smith and was voted upon by members in his absence. Perhaps the section was intended to prevent members from getting involved with plural marriage until such a time as the practice would be authorized by the Lord Church-wide. When that became the fact, the current Section 132 replaced the old Section 101.

⍗

Learn more about polygamy: 1835 Doctrine and Covenants

Wiki links	1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young polygamy

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 226. ( Index of claims ) Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 133, n42 (PB) ( Index of claims ) Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 28. ( Index of claims ) MormonThink.com website (as of 28 April 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm Richard N. and Joan K. Ostling, Mormon America: The Power and the Promise, (New York:HarperCollins Publishers, 2000), 60. ( Index of claims ) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 205.( Index of claims ) Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 6. Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 3)

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

Response to claim: 36 - Oliver Cowdery referred to this relationship as a “dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger’s"==

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

Fanny Alger was one of Joseph’s “earliest plural wives,” but Oliver Cowdery referred to this relationship as a “dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger’s.”

Author's sources: Tanner, ‘’Mormonism-Shadow or Reality?’’ 203; see also Brodie, ‘’No Man Knows’’, 181-85; Newell and Avery, ‘’Mormon Enigma’’, 66.

FAIR's Response

Question: Did Joseph Smith marry Fanny Alger as his first plural wife in 1833? Question: Did some of Joseph Smith's associates believe that Joseph Smith had an affair with Fanny Alger?

Response to claim: 36-37 - Joseph secretly practiced polygamy “through the rest of his life, always with denials”

Template:IndexClaimItemShort Template:SummaryItem

Response to claim: 37 - "Obviously, these papyri do not relate to the Abraham of the Old Testament, as Joseph Smith claimed"

Template:IndexClaimItemShort Source:Doctrine and Covenants Study Guide:Unit 31:These papyri contain authentic Egyptian writings, but they do not date to the time of Abraham, nor do they contain the actual personally handwritten account of Abraham Question: How was the text of the Book of Abraham produced by Joseph Smith? Question: Did Joseph use his seer stone to receive the text of the Book of Abraham in the same manner as he did for the Book of Mormon? Question: Do we have all of the papyrus that Joseph Smith had? Question: Were the characters on the papyri written by Abraham himself? Question: Does the papyri consist of Egyptian funerary documents? Question: Do the papyri date back to the time of Abraham?

Response to claim: 37 - “Smith turned once again to treasure hunting to solve the church’s financial problems” by going to Salem, Massachusetts to look for treasure in the basement of a house there

Template:IndexClaimItemShort Template:SummaryItem

Response to claim: 38 - Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon created the impression that the Kirtland Safety Society was “created by God, that it had a sacred mission, and thus was invincible”

Template:IndexClaimItemShort Template:SummaryItem

Response to claim: 38 - “Mormon leaders organized a sort of secret church police called the ‘Danites’”

Template:IndexClaimItemShort Template:SummaryItem

Response to claim: 40 - Joseph incorporated many elements of Masonry into the temple endowment ceremony

Template:IndexClaimItemShort Template:SummaryItem

Response to claim: 41-42 - The author discusses the Council of Fifty==

Template:IndexClaimItemShort Question: What was the Council of Fifty? Question: Was Joseph Smith anointed to be "King over the earth" by the Council of Fifty?

Response to claim: 43 - The author notes that “two guns were smuggled” into Carthage Jail and that Joseph and Hyrum “using the guns that had been smuggled in to them...tried to defend themselves"

Template:IndexClaimItemShort Template:SummaryItem Template:SummaryItem

Template:FairMormonBlogBar

Response to claim: 44 - “nine of the LDS apostles were charged with counterfeiting, and to avoid arrest, the fled in the night.”

Template:IndexClaimItemShort Template:SummaryItem

Template:Endnotes sources