Alleged Contradictions in the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision

First Vision > Alleged Contradictions in the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision

Alleged Contradictions in the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision

This page is still under construction. We welcome any suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Answers Wiki page.

Summary: 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?

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.

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.

Forbidden or Not Forbidden from Joining Other Churches

Notes

BACK TO TOP