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

27

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 source(s)
History of the Church

Response

Did Joseph Smith 'boast' of keeping the Church intact?

Summary: 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). This attitude strikes some as boastful, and unbecoming a prophet. However, Joseph was using a scriptural passage by Paul, and applying it to his own situation--the idea of "boasting" was Paul's, not Joseph's. This statement is also not based on Joseph's own writing; it is an account written after his death. It may not be accurate.

28

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 source(s)
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.

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.

28

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 source(s)
Not provided

Response

• Joseph said that there was an excitement on the subject of religion. He never mentioned the word “revival.” Nevertheless, there is ample evidence of such religious excitement in the Palmyra area in 1820.

Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area

Summary: It is claimed that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect. However, the Palmyra Register indicates that the Methodists were holding camp meetings in Palmyra in 1820.

29

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

Author's source(s)
Not provided

Response

• Joseph wrote the first known account of his vision in his own hand in 1832.
• Joseph’s journal indicates that he was sharing details of his first vision with non-Mormon visitors by late 1835.

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.

30

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

Author's source(s)
Not provided.

Response

• 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.

Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area

Summary: It is claimed that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect. However, the Palmyra Register indicates that the Methodists were holding camp meetings in Palmyra in 1820.

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

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

• 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.

30

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 source(s)
Not provided.

Response

Joseph Smith's early conception of God

Summary: It is claimed that Joseph began his prophetic career with a "trinitarian" idea of God, and only later developed his theology of the Godhead. However, Joseph and the early Saints were not trinitarian, and understood God's embodiment and the identity of the Father and Son as separate beings very early on. This doctrine is apparent in the Book of Mormon, and in the earliest friendly and non-friendly accounts of such matters from the Saints.

30

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

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

Response

• 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

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

30

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

Author's source(s)
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.

Response

The "many angels" in Joseph's 9 November 1835 First Vision account.

Summary: The mention of "many angels" in the November 9, 1835 diary entry is a clarifying detail. The appearance of the Father and Son are clearly referenced separately from the mention of the "many angels." Joseph said, "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 testified 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;"

30

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 source(s)
Joseph Smith’s 1832 history and Joseph Smith-History in the Pearl of Great Price.

Response

Contradiction about knowing all churches were wrong

Summary: In his 1832 account of the First Vision, Joseph Smith said, “I found [by searching the scriptures] that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.” But in the 1835 account he said, “I knew not who [of the denominations] was right or who was wrong.” It is claimed that thus counts as evidence that the First Vision story evolved over time. However, there is no contradiction in the two texts presented in the above argument, only a short-sighted understanding of some isolated sources. The answer to this apparent contradiction lies in a detailed examination of relevant texts. It is important to first compare Joseph Smith’s November 1832 text (which is in his own handwriting) with a newspaper article printed earlier that same year which refers to the Prophet’s inaugural religious experiences.

30

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 source(s)
Tanner, ‘’Mormonism-Shadow or Reality?’’ 151-52.

Response

• 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

31

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 source(s)
Leviticus 19:26; 20:6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:10; Isaiah 19:3.

Response

• Joseph Smith was not a “magician.”

Magician Walters as a mentor?

Summary: A "vagabond fortune-teller" named Walters became popular in the Palmyra area. When Walters left the area, did "his mantle" fall upon Joseph Smith? The reality is that the idea that Walter's "mantle" fell upon Joseph is the creation of an enemy of Joseph Smith, Abner Cole.

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

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

< 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

31

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?”

Response
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.

• 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

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

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

33

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 source(s)
Matthew 16:18

Response

Jesus told Peter, "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Summary: 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. However, 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. 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.

33

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 Mechizedek.’”

Author's source(s)
Hebrews 3:1; 4:14-16; 5:1-9; 6:20; 7:11-28.

Response

Hebrews 7 and the Aaronic priesthood

Summary: Hebrews 7 states that the Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood was "changed" to the unique priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek" held by Jesus Christ. Why then do Mormons still use the Aaronic Priesthood? 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.

33

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 source(s)
Doctrine and Covenants 115:4.

Response

•   The author got one fact correct:  
  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.”

34

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 source(s)
Doctrine and Covenants 84:3-5

Response

Independence temple to be built "in this generation"

Summary: Is Joseph Smith's declaration that the Independence, Missouri temple "shall be reared in this generation" an example of a failed prophecy? Joseph Smith's revelation in D&C 84 may appear on the surface to be a failed prophecy, but a more informed reading reveals that it may not have been a prophecy, and if it is, its fulfillment is still in the future.

35

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 source(s)
Joseph Smith, ‘’History of the Church’’, vol. 2 (Salt Lake Cithy: Deseret Book Co., 1978), 182.

Response

Second Coming in 1890 (56 years)

Summary: Is it true that Joseph Smith prophesied Jesus Christ's return in 1890? If this prophecy is read in its entirety, instead it being an "unfulfilled prophecy" as asserted by the detractors, it actually testifies to the truthfulness of the mission and prophetic stature of the Prophet Joseph Smith. No man knows the exact time the Savior will return, and Joseph Smith never claimed to.

35

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 source(s)
Not provided.

Response

• 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

36

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 source(s)
Doctrine and Covenants (Kirtland, Ohio: F.G. Williams & Co., 1835), 251.

Response

1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy

Summary: The 1835 edition of the D&C contained a statement of marriage which denied the practice of polygamy. Since this was published during Joseph Smith's lifetime, why might the prophet have allowed it to be published if he was actually practicing polygamy at that time?

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

< 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

What do we know about Joseph Smith's first plural wife Fanny Alger?

There are no first-hand accounts of the relationship between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger

One of the wives about whom we know relatively little is Fanny Alger, Joseph's first plural wife, whom he came to know in early 1833 when she stayed at the Smith home as a house-assistant of sorts to Emma (such work was common for young women at the time). There are no first-hand accounts of their relationship (from Joseph or Fanny), nor are there second-hand accounts (from Emma or Fanny's family). All that we do have is third hand (and mostly hostile) accounts, most of them recorded many years after the events.

Unfortunately, this lack of reliable and extensive historical detail leaves much room for critics to claim that Joseph Smith had an affair with Fanny and then later invented plural marriage as way to justify his actions which, again, rests on dubious historical grounds. The problem is we don't know the details of the relationship or exactly of what it consisted, and so are left to assume that Joseph acted honorably (as believers) or dishonorably (as critics).

There is some historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored, so it is perfectly legitimate to argue that Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger was such a case. Mosiah Hancock (a Mormon) reported a wedding ceremony; and apostate Mormons Ann Eliza Webb Young and her father Chauncery both referred to Fanny's relationship as a "sealing." Ann Eliza also reported that Fanny's family was very proud of Fanny's relationship with Joseph, which makes little sense if it was simply a tawdry affair. Those closest to them saw the marriage as exactly that—a marriage.

Did Joseph Smith marry Fanny Alger as his first plural wife in 1833?

Joseph Smith met Fanny Alger in 1833 when she was a house-assistant to Emma

Joseph Smith came to know Fanny Alger in early 1833 when she stayed at the Smith home as a house-assistant to Emma. Neither Joseph nor Fanny ever left any first-hand accounts of their relationship. There are no second-hand accounts from Emma or Fanny's family. All that we do have is third hand accounts from people who did not directly observe the events associated with this first plural marriage, and most of them recorded many years after the events.

Joseph said that the "ancient order of plural marriage" was to again be practiced at the time that Fanny was living with his family

Benjamin F. Johnson stated that in 1835 he had "learned from my sister’s husband, Lyman R. Sherman, who was close to the Prophet, and received it from him, 'that the ancient order of Plural Marriage was again to be practiced by the Church.' This, at the time did not impress my mind deeply, although there lived then with his family (the Prophet’s) a neighbor’s daughter, Fannie Alger, a very nice and comely young woman about my own age, toward whom not only myself, but every one, seemed partial, for the amiability for her character; and it was whispered even then that Joseph loved her."

Joseph asked the brother-in-law of Fanny's father to make the request of Fanny's father, after which a marriage ceremony was performed

Mosiah Hancock discusses the manner in which the proposal was extended to Fanny, and states that a marriage ceremony was performed. Joseph asked Levi Hancock, the brother-in-law of Samuel Alger, Fanny’s father, to request Fanny as his plural wife:

Samuel, the Prophet Joseph loves your daughter Fanny and wishes her for a wife. What say you?" Uncle Sam says, "Go and talk to the old woman [Fanny’s mother] about it. Twill be as she says." Father goes to his sister and said, "Clarissy, Brother Joseph the Prophet of the most high God loves Fanny and wishes her for a wife. What say you?" Said she, "Go and talk to Fanny. It will be all right with me." Father goes to Fanny and said, "Fanny, Brother Joseph the Prophet loves you and wishes you for a wife. Will you be his wife?" "I will Levi," said she. Father takes Fanny to Joseph and said, "Brother Joseph I have been successful in my mission." Father gave her to Joseph, repeating the ceremony as Joseph repeated to him.

How could Joseph and Fanny have been married in 1831 if the sealing power had not yet been restored?

There is historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored

There is historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored. Mosiah Hancock (a Mormon) reported a wedding ceremony in Kirtland, Ohio in 1833.

Apostate Mormons Ann Eliza Webb Young and her father Chauncery both referred to Fanny's relationship as a "sealing." Ann Eliza also reported that Fanny's family was very proud of Fanny's relationship with Joseph, which makes little sense if it was simply a tawdry affair. Those closest to them saw the marriage as exactly that—a marriage.

Joseph and Fanny's marriage was a plural marriage, not an eternal marriage

Some have wondered how the first plural marriages (such as the Alger marriage) could have occurred before the 1836 restoration of the sealing keys in the Kirtland temple (see D&C 110). This confusion occurs because we tend to conflate several ideas. They were not all initially wrapped together in one doctrine:

1. plural marriage - the idea that one could be married (in mortality) to more than one woman: being taught by 1831.
2. eternal marriage - the idea that a man and spouse could be sealed and remain together beyond the grave: being taught by 1835.
3. "celestial" marriage - the combination of the above two ideas, in which all marriages—plural and monogamous—could last beyond the grave via the sealing powers: implemented by 1840-41.

Thus, the marriage to Fanny would have occurred under the understanding #1 above. The concept of sealing beyond the grave came later. Therefore, the marriage of Joseph and Fanny would have been a plural marriage, but it would not have been a marriage for eternity.

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that priesthood power already gave the ability to ratify certain ordinances as binding on heaven and earth (D&C 1:8), that the sealing power was given mention in earlier revelations such as Helaman 10:7, and that the coming of Elijah and his turning of the hearts of children and fathers was prophesied in 3 Nephi 25:5-6. This supports the view that it is unlikely that Joseph was just making up the sealing power and priesthood power extemporaneously to justify getting married to Fanny and having sexual relations with her.

Did some of Joseph Smith's associates believe that he had an affair with Fanny Alger?

Oliver Cowdery perceived the relationship between Joseph and Fanny as a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair"

Some of Joseph's associates, most notably Oliver Cowdery, perceived Joseph's association with Fanny as an affair rather than a plural marriage. Oliver, in a letter to his brother Warren, asserted that "in every instance I did not fail to affirm that which I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger's was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deserted from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself."

Gary J. Bergera, an advocate of the "affair" theory, wrote:

I do not believe that Fanny Alger, whom [Todd] Compton counts as Smith’s first plural wife, satisfies the criteria to be considered a "wife." Briefly, the sources for such a "marriage" are all retrospective and presented from a point of view favoring plural marriage, rather than, say, an extramarital liaison…Smith’s doctrine of eternal marriage was not formulated until after 1839–40.

There are several problems with this analysis. While it is true that sources on Fanny are all retrospective, the same is true of many early plural marriages. Fanny's marriage has more evidence than some. Bergera says that all the sources about Fanny's marriage come "from a point of view favoring plural marriage," but this claim is clearly false.

Even hostile accounts of the relationship between Joseph and Fanny report a marriage or sealing

For example, Fanny's marriage was mentioned by Ann Eliza Webb Young, a later wife of Brigham Young's who divorced him, published an anti-Mormon book, and spent much of her time giving anti-Mormon, anti-polygamy lectures. Fanny stayed with Ann Eliza's family after leaving Joseph and Emma's house, and both Ann Eliza and her father Chauncey Webb refer to Joseph's relationship to Fanny as a "sealing." Eliza also noted that the Alger family "considered it the highest honor to have their daughter adopted into the prophet's family, and her mother has always claimed that she [Fanny] was sealed to Joseph at that time." This would be a strange attitude to take if their relationship was a mere affair. And, the hostile Webbs had no reason to invent a "sealing" idea if they could have made Fanny into a mere case of adultery.

It seems clear, then, that Joseph, Fanny's family, Levi Hancock, and even hostile witnesses saw their relationship as a marriage, albeit an unorthodox one. The witness of Chauncey Webb and Ann Eliza Webb Young make it untenable to claim that only a later Mormon whitewash turned an affair into a marriage.

See also Brian Hales' discussion

The Prophet Receives the Sealing Keys in 1836	It appears that shortly after the April 3 vision, Joseph Smith recorded a first-hand account of the vision in his own personal journal or notes. That original record has not been found and is probably lost. Nonetheless, these important visitations were documented in other contemporaneous records. Within a few days, the Prophet’s secretary Warren Cowdery transcribed Joseph’s first-hand account into a third-hand account to be used in the Church history then being composed.
Joseph Smith does not Mention Eternal Marriage until 1841	Despite the importance of Elijah and the Kirtland Temple visitations, Joseph Smith did not publicly teach eternal marriage for perhaps six years after he received the authority to perform those ordinances.
Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger: A Plural Marriage Ceremony	Sometime in late 1835 or early 1836, in a priesthood ceremony performed by Levi Hancock, Joseph secretly married Fanny Alger, a domestic living in the Smith home. When Oliver Cowdery and Emma Smith learned of the relationship, they did not consider it a legitimate marriage. Joseph was unable to convince them the polygamous marriage was approved of God. Fanny left the area and married a non-member a few months later and never returned to the Church. Her family and other who were close to her remained true to Joseph Smith, following him to Nauvoo and later migrating with the Saints to Utah.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Gary James Bergera, "Identifying the Earliest Mormon Polygamists, 1841–44," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought no. 3 (Fall 2005), 30n75. MormonThink.com website (as of 28 April 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "...but we called it celestial marriage" (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), {{{pages}}}. ( Index of claims , (Detailed book review))

Did Emma Smith discover her husband Joseph with Fanny Alger in a barn?

William McLellin claimed to have heard a story that Fanny and Joseph were in the barn and Emma had observed them

In 1872, William McLellin (then an apostate excommunicated nearly 34 years prior) wrote a letter to Emma and Joseph's son, Joseph Smith III:

Now Joseph I will relate to you some history, and refer you to your own dear Mother for the truth. You will probably remember that I visited your Mother and family in 1847, and held a lengthy conversation with her, retired in the Mansion House in Nauvoo. I did not ask her to tell, but I told her some stories I had heard. And she told me whether I was properly informed. Dr. F. G. Williams practiced with me in Clay Co. Mo. during the latter part of 1838. And he told me that at your birth your father committed an act with a Miss Hill [sic]—a hired girl. Emma saw him, and spoke to him. He desisted, but Mrs. Smith refused to be satisfied. He called in Dr. Williams, O. Cowdery, and S. Rigdon to reconcile Emma. But she told them just as the circumstances took place. He found he was caught. He confessed humbly, and begged forgiveness. Emma and all forgave him. She told me this story was true!! Again I told her I heard that one night she missed Joseph and Fanny Alger. She went to the barn and saw him and Fanny in the barn together alone. She looked through a crack and saw the transaction!!! She told me this story too was verily true.

Some critics interpret "transaction" to mean intercourse in this case and that Emma caught Joseph in the very act. But McLellin reported on the event again three years afterwards in 1875 to J. H. Beadle and makes it clear that he is talking about the wedding or sealing ceremony:

He [McLellin] was in the vicinity during all the Mormon troubles in Northern Missouri, and grieved heavily over the suffering of his former brethren. He also informed me of the spot where the first well authenticated case of polygamy took place in which Joseph Smith was "sealed" to the hired girl. The "sealing" took place in a barn on the hay mow, and was witnessed by Mrs. Smith through a crack in the door! The Doctor was so distressed about this case, (it created some scandal at the time among the Saints,) that long afterwards when he visited Mrs. Emma Smith at Nauvoo, he charged her as she hoped for salvation to tell him the truth about it. And she then and there declared on her honor that it was a fact—"saw it with her own eyes."

Ann Eliza Webb, who was born 11 years after Joseph's marriage to Fanny, claimed that Emma threw Fanny out of the house

Ann Eliza Webb, who was born in 1844, was not even alive at the time of these events, could only only comment based upon what her father told her about Joseph and Fanny. Ann apostatized from the Church and wrote an "expose" called Wife No. 19, or The story of a Life in Bondage. She described Fanny as follows:

Mrs. Smith had an adopted daughter, a very pretty, pleasing young girl, about seventeen years old. She was extremely fond of her; no mother could be more devoted, and their affection for each other was a constant object of remark, so absorbing and genuine did it seem. Consequently is was with a shocked surprise that people heard that sister Emma had turned Fanny out of the house in the night.

Did Fanny Alger have a child by Joseph Smith?

A suggestion that Fanny was pregnant by Joseph surfaced in an 1886 anti-Mormon book with a claim that Emma "drove" Fanny out of the house

The first mention of a pregnancy for Fanny is in an 1886 anti-Mormon work, citing Chauncey Webb, with whom Fanny reportedly lived after leaving the Smith home. Webb claimed that Emma "drove" Fanny from the house because she "was unable to conceal the consequences of her celestial relation with the prophet." If Fanny was pregnant, it is curious that no one else remarked upon it at the time, though it is possible that the close quarters of a nineteenth-century household provided Emma with clues. If Fanny was pregnant by Joseph, the child never went to term, died young, or was raised under a different name.

Fawn Brodie claimed that Fanny's son Orrison was the son of Joseph Smith, but this was disproven by DNA research

Fawn Brodie, in her critical work No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, claimed that "there is some evidence that Fannie Alger bore Joseph a child in Kirtland." However, DNA research in 2005 confirmed Fanny Alger’s son Orrison Smith is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

< 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

What do we know about Joseph Smith's first plural wife Fanny Alger?

There are no first-hand accounts of the relationship between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger

One of the wives about whom we know relatively little is Fanny Alger, Joseph's first plural wife, whom he came to know in early 1833 when she stayed at the Smith home as a house-assistant of sorts to Emma (such work was common for young women at the time). There are no first-hand accounts of their relationship (from Joseph or Fanny), nor are there second-hand accounts (from Emma or Fanny's family). All that we do have is third hand (and mostly hostile) accounts, most of them recorded many years after the events.

Unfortunately, this lack of reliable and extensive historical detail leaves much room for critics to claim that Joseph Smith had an affair with Fanny and then later invented plural marriage as way to justify his actions which, again, rests on dubious historical grounds. The problem is we don't know the details of the relationship or exactly of what it consisted, and so are left to assume that Joseph acted honorably (as believers) or dishonorably (as critics).

There is some historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored, so it is perfectly legitimate to argue that Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger was such a case. Mosiah Hancock (a Mormon) reported a wedding ceremony; and apostate Mormons Ann Eliza Webb Young and her father Chauncery both referred to Fanny's relationship as a "sealing." Ann Eliza also reported that Fanny's family was very proud of Fanny's relationship with Joseph, which makes little sense if it was simply a tawdry affair. Those closest to them saw the marriage as exactly that—a marriage.

Did Joseph Smith marry Fanny Alger as his first plural wife in 1833?

Joseph Smith met Fanny Alger in 1833 when she was a house-assistant to Emma

Joseph Smith came to know Fanny Alger in early 1833 when she stayed at the Smith home as a house-assistant to Emma. Neither Joseph nor Fanny ever left any first-hand accounts of their relationship. There are no second-hand accounts from Emma or Fanny's family. All that we do have is third hand accounts from people who did not directly observe the events associated with this first plural marriage, and most of them recorded many years after the events.

Joseph said that the "ancient order of plural marriage" was to again be practiced at the time that Fanny was living with his family

Benjamin F. Johnson stated that in 1835 he had "learned from my sister’s husband, Lyman R. Sherman, who was close to the Prophet, and received it from him, 'that the ancient order of Plural Marriage was again to be practiced by the Church.' This, at the time did not impress my mind deeply, although there lived then with his family (the Prophet’s) a neighbor’s daughter, Fannie Alger, a very nice and comely young woman about my own age, toward whom not only myself, but every one, seemed partial, for the amiability for her character; and it was whispered even then that Joseph loved her."

Joseph asked the brother-in-law of Fanny's father to make the request of Fanny's father, after which a marriage ceremony was performed

Mosiah Hancock discusses the manner in which the proposal was extended to Fanny, and states that a marriage ceremony was performed. Joseph asked Levi Hancock, the brother-in-law of Samuel Alger, Fanny’s father, to request Fanny as his plural wife:

Samuel, the Prophet Joseph loves your daughter Fanny and wishes her for a wife. What say you?" Uncle Sam says, "Go and talk to the old woman [Fanny’s mother] about it. Twill be as she says." Father goes to his sister and said, "Clarissy, Brother Joseph the Prophet of the most high God loves Fanny and wishes her for a wife. What say you?" Said she, "Go and talk to Fanny. It will be all right with me." Father goes to Fanny and said, "Fanny, Brother Joseph the Prophet loves you and wishes you for a wife. Will you be his wife?" "I will Levi," said she. Father takes Fanny to Joseph and said, "Brother Joseph I have been successful in my mission." Father gave her to Joseph, repeating the ceremony as Joseph repeated to him.

How could Joseph and Fanny have been married in 1831 if the sealing power had not yet been restored?

There is historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored

There is historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored. Mosiah Hancock (a Mormon) reported a wedding ceremony in Kirtland, Ohio in 1833.

Apostate Mormons Ann Eliza Webb Young and her father Chauncery both referred to Fanny's relationship as a "sealing." Ann Eliza also reported that Fanny's family was very proud of Fanny's relationship with Joseph, which makes little sense if it was simply a tawdry affair. Those closest to them saw the marriage as exactly that—a marriage.

Joseph and Fanny's marriage was a plural marriage, not an eternal marriage

Some have wondered how the first plural marriages (such as the Alger marriage) could have occurred before the 1836 restoration of the sealing keys in the Kirtland temple (see D&C 110). This confusion occurs because we tend to conflate several ideas. They were not all initially wrapped together in one doctrine:

1. plural marriage - the idea that one could be married (in mortality) to more than one woman: being taught by 1831.
2. eternal marriage - the idea that a man and spouse could be sealed and remain together beyond the grave: being taught by 1835.
3. "celestial" marriage - the combination of the above two ideas, in which all marriages—plural and monogamous—could last beyond the grave via the sealing powers: implemented by 1840-41.

Thus, the marriage to Fanny would have occurred under the understanding #1 above. The concept of sealing beyond the grave came later. Therefore, the marriage of Joseph and Fanny would have been a plural marriage, but it would not have been a marriage for eternity.

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that priesthood power already gave the ability to ratify certain ordinances as binding on heaven and earth (D&C 1:8), that the sealing power was given mention in earlier revelations such as Helaman 10:7, and that the coming of Elijah and his turning of the hearts of children and fathers was prophesied in 3 Nephi 25:5-6. This supports the view that it is unlikely that Joseph was just making up the sealing power and priesthood power extemporaneously to justify getting married to Fanny and having sexual relations with her.

Did some of Joseph Smith's associates believe that he had an affair with Fanny Alger?

Oliver Cowdery perceived the relationship between Joseph and Fanny as a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair"

Some of Joseph's associates, most notably Oliver Cowdery, perceived Joseph's association with Fanny as an affair rather than a plural marriage. Oliver, in a letter to his brother Warren, asserted that "in every instance I did not fail to affirm that which I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger's was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deserted from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself."

Gary J. Bergera, an advocate of the "affair" theory, wrote:

I do not believe that Fanny Alger, whom [Todd] Compton counts as Smith’s first plural wife, satisfies the criteria to be considered a "wife." Briefly, the sources for such a "marriage" are all retrospective and presented from a point of view favoring plural marriage, rather than, say, an extramarital liaison…Smith’s doctrine of eternal marriage was not formulated until after 1839–40.

There are several problems with this analysis. While it is true that sources on Fanny are all retrospective, the same is true of many early plural marriages. Fanny's marriage has more evidence than some. Bergera says that all the sources about Fanny's marriage come "from a point of view favoring plural marriage," but this claim is clearly false.

Even hostile accounts of the relationship between Joseph and Fanny report a marriage or sealing

For example, Fanny's marriage was mentioned by Ann Eliza Webb Young, a later wife of Brigham Young's who divorced him, published an anti-Mormon book, and spent much of her time giving anti-Mormon, anti-polygamy lectures. Fanny stayed with Ann Eliza's family after leaving Joseph and Emma's house, and both Ann Eliza and her father Chauncey Webb refer to Joseph's relationship to Fanny as a "sealing." Eliza also noted that the Alger family "considered it the highest honor to have their daughter adopted into the prophet's family, and her mother has always claimed that she [Fanny] was sealed to Joseph at that time." This would be a strange attitude to take if their relationship was a mere affair. And, the hostile Webbs had no reason to invent a "sealing" idea if they could have made Fanny into a mere case of adultery.

It seems clear, then, that Joseph, Fanny's family, Levi Hancock, and even hostile witnesses saw their relationship as a marriage, albeit an unorthodox one. The witness of Chauncey Webb and Ann Eliza Webb Young make it untenable to claim that only a later Mormon whitewash turned an affair into a marriage.

See also Brian Hales' discussion

The Prophet Receives the Sealing Keys in 1836	It appears that shortly after the April 3 vision, Joseph Smith recorded a first-hand account of the vision in his own personal journal or notes. That original record has not been found and is probably lost. Nonetheless, these important visitations were documented in other contemporaneous records. Within a few days, the Prophet’s secretary Warren Cowdery transcribed Joseph’s first-hand account into a third-hand account to be used in the Church history then being composed.
Joseph Smith does not Mention Eternal Marriage until 1841	Despite the importance of Elijah and the Kirtland Temple visitations, Joseph Smith did not publicly teach eternal marriage for perhaps six years after he received the authority to perform those ordinances.
Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger: A Plural Marriage Ceremony	Sometime in late 1835 or early 1836, in a priesthood ceremony performed by Levi Hancock, Joseph secretly married Fanny Alger, a domestic living in the Smith home. When Oliver Cowdery and Emma Smith learned of the relationship, they did not consider it a legitimate marriage. Joseph was unable to convince them the polygamous marriage was approved of God. Fanny left the area and married a non-member a few months later and never returned to the Church. Her family and other who were close to her remained true to Joseph Smith, following him to Nauvoo and later migrating with the Saints to Utah.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Gary James Bergera, "Identifying the Earliest Mormon Polygamists, 1841–44," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought no. 3 (Fall 2005), 30n75. MormonThink.com website (as of 28 April 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "...but we called it celestial marriage" (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), {{{pages}}}. ( Index of claims , (Detailed book review))

Did Emma Smith discover her husband Joseph with Fanny Alger in a barn?

William McLellin claimed to have heard a story that Fanny and Joseph were in the barn and Emma had observed them

In 1872, William McLellin (then an apostate excommunicated nearly 34 years prior) wrote a letter to Emma and Joseph's son, Joseph Smith III:

Now Joseph I will relate to you some history, and refer you to your own dear Mother for the truth. You will probably remember that I visited your Mother and family in 1847, and held a lengthy conversation with her, retired in the Mansion House in Nauvoo. I did not ask her to tell, but I told her some stories I had heard. And she told me whether I was properly informed. Dr. F. G. Williams practiced with me in Clay Co. Mo. during the latter part of 1838. And he told me that at your birth your father committed an act with a Miss Hill [sic]—a hired girl. Emma saw him, and spoke to him. He desisted, but Mrs. Smith refused to be satisfied. He called in Dr. Williams, O. Cowdery, and S. Rigdon to reconcile Emma. But she told them just as the circumstances took place. He found he was caught. He confessed humbly, and begged forgiveness. Emma and all forgave him. She told me this story was true!! Again I told her I heard that one night she missed Joseph and Fanny Alger. She went to the barn and saw him and Fanny in the barn together alone. She looked through a crack and saw the transaction!!! She told me this story too was verily true.

Some critics interpret "transaction" to mean intercourse in this case and that Emma caught Joseph in the very act. But McLellin reported on the event again three years afterwards in 1875 to J. H. Beadle and makes it clear that he is talking about the wedding or sealing ceremony:

He [McLellin] was in the vicinity during all the Mormon troubles in Northern Missouri, and grieved heavily over the suffering of his former brethren. He also informed me of the spot where the first well authenticated case of polygamy took place in which Joseph Smith was "sealed" to the hired girl. The "sealing" took place in a barn on the hay mow, and was witnessed by Mrs. Smith through a crack in the door! The Doctor was so distressed about this case, (it created some scandal at the time among the Saints,) that long afterwards when he visited Mrs. Emma Smith at Nauvoo, he charged her as she hoped for salvation to tell him the truth about it. And she then and there declared on her honor that it was a fact—"saw it with her own eyes."

Ann Eliza Webb, who was born 11 years after Joseph's marriage to Fanny, claimed that Emma threw Fanny out of the house

Ann Eliza Webb, who was born in 1844, was not even alive at the time of these events, could only only comment based upon what her father told her about Joseph and Fanny. Ann apostatized from the Church and wrote an "expose" called Wife No. 19, or The story of a Life in Bondage. She described Fanny as follows:

Mrs. Smith had an adopted daughter, a very pretty, pleasing young girl, about seventeen years old. She was extremely fond of her; no mother could be more devoted, and their affection for each other was a constant object of remark, so absorbing and genuine did it seem. Consequently is was with a shocked surprise that people heard that sister Emma had turned Fanny out of the house in the night.

Did Fanny Alger have a child by Joseph Smith?

A suggestion that Fanny was pregnant by Joseph surfaced in an 1886 anti-Mormon book with a claim that Emma "drove" Fanny out of the house

The first mention of a pregnancy for Fanny is in an 1886 anti-Mormon work, citing Chauncey Webb, with whom Fanny reportedly lived after leaving the Smith home. Webb claimed that Emma "drove" Fanny from the house because she "was unable to conceal the consequences of her celestial relation with the prophet." If Fanny was pregnant, it is curious that no one else remarked upon it at the time, though it is possible that the close quarters of a nineteenth-century household provided Emma with clues. If Fanny was pregnant by Joseph, the child never went to term, died young, or was raised under a different name.

Fawn Brodie claimed that Fanny's son Orrison was the son of Joseph Smith, but this was disproven by DNA research

Fawn Brodie, in her critical work No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, claimed that "there is some evidence that Fannie Alger bore Joseph a child in Kirtland." However, DNA research in 2005 confirmed Fanny Alger’s son Orrison Smith is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

36-37

Claim
Joseph secretly practiced polygamy “through the rest of his life, always with denials.”

Author's source(s)
Tanner, ‘’Mormonism-Shadow or Reality?’’ 245-48.

Response

Hiding the truth about polygamy

Summary: It is true that Joseph did not always tell others about plural marriage. He did, however, make some attempt to teach the doctrine to the Saints. It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy—or announcing it to the general Church membership, thereby informing the public by proxy—was simply not a feasible plan. Critics of Joseph's choice want their audience to ignore the danger to him and the Saints.

37

Claim
Regarding the Book of Abraham, the author states that “Egyptologist have shown that the papyri Smith supposedly translated date to about the time of Chirst and are standard Egyptian funeral documents, depicting various Egyptian gods and goddesses. Obviously, these papyri do not relate to the Abraham of the Old Testament, as Joseph Smith claimed.”

Author's source(s)
’’Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Though,’’ summer 1968, 68, 98; and autumn 1968, 119-20, 133; Charles M. Larson, ‘’By His Own Hand Upon Papyrs: A New Look At The Joseph Smith Papyri (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Institute for Religious Studies, 1992), 61-111.

Response

How was the Book of Abraham produced?

Summary: How did Joseph Smith produce the Book of Abraham?

37

Claim
The author states that in 1836, “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.

Author's source(s)
Doctrine and Covenants 132:19, 20, 52, 61, 62.

Response

"Treasure hunting" trip to Salem

Summary: Was Joseph Smith commanded by the Lord to go to Salem, Massachusetts to hunt for treasure in the cellar of a house? Upon arriving there, the treasure was nowhere to be found. Joseph and several other leaders traveled to Salem hoping to find money that could be used to satisfy some of the Church's outstanding debt. The trip was apparently made on their own initiative, and was not commanded by the Lord. Joseph did not "prophesy" that they would find money in Salem, but instead made the trip because he became convinced that the story that the treasure existed might true. Upon failing to locate the money, they spent their time preaching to the people in Salem.

38

Claim
The author claims that 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.”

Author's source(s)
Van Wagoner, ‘’Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994)’’, 184.

Response

Kirtland Safety Society

Summary: The Kirtland Safety Society was an unwise venture that was probably illegal, though legal counsel was divided on that matter at the time. The intent of Church leaders does not seem to have been to break the law, but to solve a vexing problem which thousands of others also faced. The failure of the bank was not due to mismanagement or a desire to enrich individuals, but due to the relatively fragile nature of the time’s financial infrastructure, and the economic conditions of 1837. The lack of a charter was the KSS's biggest weakness and the most ill-advised decision connected with it. Arguably, even had the bank possessed a charter, the outcome would have been little different, save that the Church leaders would have suffered fewer legal problems and harassment. The Kirtland Safety Society is an excellent example of why Latter-day Saints do not put their trust in men, but in God. It also demonstrates that the Saints will continue to support fallible men as prophets of God.

38

Claim
The author states that “Mormon leaders organized a sort of secret chrch police called the ‘Danites.’”

Author's source(s)
Not provided.

Response

Danites

Summary: The Danites were a brotherhood of church members that formed in Far West, Missouri in mid-1838. By this point in time, the Saints had experienced serious persecution, having been driven out of Kirtland by apostates, and driven out of Jackson County by mobs. It is claimed that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon supported the formation of a vigilante band called the “Danites," and that the Danites were pledged to “plunder, lie, and even kill if deemed necessary." Regardless of their original motives, the Danites ultimately were led astray by their leader, Sampson Avard. Avard attempted to blame Joseph Smith in order to save himself. Joseph, however, clearly repudiated both the organization and Avard.

40

Claim
The author notes that Joseph incorporated many elements of Masonry into the temple endowment ceremony.

Author's source(s)
Not provided.

Response

Temple endowment and Freemasonry

Summary: Some critics of Mormonism see similarities between the rites of Freemasonry and LDS temple ceremonies and assume that since Joseph Smith was initiated as a Freemason shortly before he introduced the Nauvoo-style endowment he must have plagiarized elements of the Masonic rituals. This viewpoint leads them, in turn, to conclude that the LDS endowment is nothing but a variant form of Masonic initiation and therefore not from a divine source. However, 1) Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment, 2) Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and 3) the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.

41-42 - The author discusses the Council of Fifty

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

The author discusses the Council of Fifty.

Author's sources: Fawn Brodie, ‘’Now Man Knows My History’’, 356.

FAIR's Response

Question: What was the Council of Fifty?

Joseph Smith received a revelation which called for the organization of a special council

On 7 April 1842, Joseph Smith received a revelation titled "The Kingdom of God and His Laws, With the Keys and Power Thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ," which called the for the organization of a special council separate from, but parallel to, the Church. Since its inception, this organization has been generally been referred to as "the Council of Fifty" because of its approximate number of members.

The Council of Fifty was designed to serve as something of a preparatory legislature in the Kingdom of God

Latter-day Saints believe that one reason the gospel was restored was to prepare the earth for the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Just as the Church was to bring about religious changes in the world, the Council of Fifty was intended to bring a political transformation. It was therefore designed to serve as something of a preparatory legislature in the Kingdom of God. Joseph Smith ordained the council to be the governing body of the world, with himself as chairman, Prophet, Priest, and King over the Council and the world (subject to Jesus Christ, who is "King of kings").

The Council was organized on 11 March 1844, at which time it adopted rules of procedure, including those governing legislation. One rule included instructions for passing motions:

To pass, a motion must be unanimous in the affirmative. Voting is done after the ancient order: each person voting in turn from the oldest to the youngest member of the Council, commencing with the standing chairman. If any member has any objections he is under covenant to fully and freely make them known to the Council. But if he cannot be convinced of the rightness of the course pursued by the Council he must either yield or withdraw membership in the Council. Thus a man will lose his place in the Council if he refuses to act in accordance with righteous principles in the deliberations of the Council. After action is taken and a motion accepted, no fault will be found or change sought for in regard to the motion.

What is interesting about this rule is that it required each council member, by covenant, to voice his objections to proposed legislation. Those council members who dissented and could not be convinced to change their minds were to withdraw from the council, however, they would suffer no repercussions by doing so. Thus, full freedom of conscience was maintained by the council — not exactly the sort of actions a despot or tyrant would allow.

The Council never rose to the stature Joseph intended

Members (which included individuals that were not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) were sent on expeditions west to explore emigration routes for the Saints, lobbied the American government, and were involved in Joseph Smith's presidential campaign. But only three months after it was established, Joseph was killed, and his death was the beginning of the Council's end. Brigham Young used it as the Saints moved west and settled in the Great Basin, and it met annually during John Taylor's administration, but since that time the Council has not played an active role among the Latter-day Saints.

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

Question: Was Joseph Smith anointed to be "King over the earth" by the Council of Fifty?

Joseph was never anointed King over the earth in any political sense

Some people claim that Joseph Smith had himself anointed king over the whole world, and that this shows he was some sort of megalomaniac.

The Council of Fifty, while established in preparation for a future Millennial government under Jesus Christ (who is the King of Kings) was to be governed on earth during this preparatory period by the highest presiding ecclesiastical authority, which at the time was the Prophet Joseph Smith. Joseph had previously been anointed a King and Priest in the Kingdom of God by religious rites associated with the fullness of the temple endowment, and was placed as a presiding authority over this body in his most exalted position within the kingdom of God (as a King and a Priest).

Joseph was anointed as the presiding authority over an organization that was to prepare for the future reign of Jesus Christ during the Millennium

The fact that Joseph's prior anointing was referenced in his position as presiding authority over this body creates the confusion that he had been anointed King of the Earth. He was in fact only anointed as the presiding authority over an organization that was to prepare for the future reign of Jesus Christ during the Millennium. The fact that Joseph had submitted his name for consideration as President of the United States during this same period adds fodder for critics seeking to malign the character of the Prophet.

43

Claim
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 against the assailants.’’

Author's source(s)
Smith, ‘’History of the Church’’, vol. 6: 607-621; vol. 7: 102-105.

Response

Joseph fired a gun

Summary: It is claimed that Joseph could not have been a "martyr" because he had and used a gun at Carthage Jail.

Hiding Joseph's gun

Summary: It is claimed that the Church has attempted to hide Joseph's gun, despite the fact that it is on display at the Church History Museum in Salt Lake City

The FAIR Blog responds to these questions

Roger Nicholson,"The Prophet and the Pistol: A Perspective on the Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith", FAIR Blog, (November 7, 2013)

In the Church History Museum near Temple Square, located inside a glass case, resides a pair of 19th century pistols and a walking stick. The placard reads, in part, as follows,

Joseph’s Pepperbox Pistol and Hyrum’s Single Shot Pistol. These guns were used by both men for their defense during the attack at Carthage

These were the guns that were smuggled into the Carthage Jail while Joseph Smith, Hyrum and their friends awaited their fate. On the morning of June 27, 1844, Cyrus Wheelock visited the jail.

The morning being a little rainy, favoured his wearing an overcoat, in the side pocket of which he was enabled to carry a six-shooter, and he passed the guard unmolested. During his visit in the prison he slipped the revolver into Joseph’s pocket. Joseph examined it, and asked Wheelock if he had not better retain it for his own protection.
This was a providential circumstance, as most other persons had been very rigidly searched. Joseph then handed the single barrel pistol, which had been given him by John S. Fullmer, to his brother Hyrum, and said, “You may have use for this.” Brother Hyrum observed, “I hate to use such things, or to see them used.” “So do I,” said Joseph, “but we may have to, to defend ourselves;” upon this Hyrum took the pistol. [i]

Although it was referred to as a “six shooter,” the pepper-box pistol was not a revolver in the normal sense. It incorporated six individual barrels, it was difficult to aim and tended to be unreliable. The June 2013 Ensign features a painting Greater Love Hath No Man, by Casey Childs. [ii] The artwork features all three items in the display case. Joseph, Hyrum and Willard Richards are attempting to hold the door shut as the mob attempts to enter the room. John Taylor is holding his walking stick. In Hyrum’s left pocket is the single shot pistol brought into the jail by Fullmer, and in Joseph’s left pocket, clearly visible, is the pepper-box pistol given to him by Wheelock.

Click here to view the complete article

44

Claim
The author states that “nine of the LDS apostles were charged with counterfeiting, and to avoid arrest, the fled in the night.”

Author's source(s)
Tanner, ‘’Mormonism-Shadow or Reality?’’ 537-41.

Response

Were Latter-day Saint apostles charged with counterfeiting?

Summary: It is claimed that government records indicate that Brigham Young, Willard Richards, Parley Pratt, and Orson Hyde were involved in making counterfeit coins, and that this may have "started under Joseph's leadership." However, there are no "government records" which prove that the apostles "were involved in making counterfeit coins." At best, there is an indictment from a local grand jury, but an indictment is not proof—and, it is unlikely that indictment was anything but a ploy to make sure the Mormons left Nauvoo.

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top