Joseph Smith’s various accounts of the First Vision provide a window into his evolving theology, particularly regarding the nature of the Godhead. The changes in each version, when looked at as a narrative through a lens to understand the thinking of church leadership at the time, show ideas developing and how these changing ideas were incorporated, retroactively, into existing narratives, and in crafting new ones.
Official 1838 Account
The “official” version of the First Vision most widely known and cited by the church today is the 1838 account, which describes two distinct “personages,” identified as Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. This narrative supports the current LDS doctrine that the Father and the Son are two separate beings, each with a physical body. Every missionary for the church is encouraged to memorize this passage and deliver it with conviction to anyone they can talk to.
When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
Joseph Smith History 1:17 (The 1838 First Vision Account)
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng&id=p17#p17
The church’s teachings on God and Jesus stray from accepted Christian thought on the nature of the Father and Son and their relationship. Has it always been so?
1832 First Vision Account
However, this understanding was not evident in earlier accounts of the vision, nor was it consistent with Joseph’s own teachings prior to that time. In Joseph’s 1832 account, the earliest known handwritten version, he states that he saw “the Lord” and emphasizes a personal forgiveness of sins. No mention is made of two divine beings or of any conversation about the true nature of the Godhead.
I cried unto the Lord for mercy, for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy. And the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness, and while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord, in the sixteenth year of my age, a pillar of light above the brightness of the sun at noonday came down from above and rested upon me. I was filled with the spirit of God, and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.
And he spake unto me, saying, “Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee….”
LDS Website: Church History, First Vision > Circa Summer 1832 History (The hidden 1832 First Vision Account)
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/first-vision-accounts/1832-account
1835 First Vision Account
Similarly, the 1835 account references “angels” and “a personage,” but still does not clearly support the later idea of two distinct divine personages appearing together. These early records suggest a more ambiguous theological understanding and do not line up with the church’s later emphasis on the First Vision as a foundational moment for clarifying the nature of God. The personage is not identified as Jesus or the Father, and it seems that the personage who speaks is neither, because it proclaims Jesus is the son of God, and not “I am the son of God,” or “Jesus is My Son.”
I called on the Lord in mighty prayer. A pillar of fire appeared above my head. It presently rested down upon me and filled me with joy unspeakable. A personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame, which was spread all around and yet nothing consumed. Another personage soon appeared, 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 fourteen years old when I received this first communication.
LDS Website: Church History, First Vision > Journal, 9–11 November 1835 (The 1835 First Vision Account)
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/first-vision-accounts/1835-account
Lectures on Faith
Joseph Smith’s 1834-1835 Lectures on Faith—prepared and published under his direction—also reflect a trinitarian understanding of God. These Lectures are a series of seven doctrinal lectures, first prepared as a course of instruction for the School of the Elders held in the second Kirtland printing office in the winter of 1834-1835. All seven lectures were published together in the 1835 first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, the lectures constituting the “doctrine,” and Joseph Smith’s revelations, the “covenants.” Although the author of these lectures is not identified, their inclusion in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835 shows that Joseph Smith approved of the content of the lectures. Even though church leaders and curriculum still quote from these lectures, they were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants when it was revised in 1921, mainly due to the confusion of the contradictory teachings.
In Lecture 5, the Godhead is described as consisting of “the Father being a personage of spirit” and “the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle.” The Holy Spirit, in this schema, is not personified but referred to as the shared mind of the Father and the Son. Each lecture is followed by a series of questions and answers to further explain the text where it is clarified that The Father is a personage of glory and power, the Son a personage of tabernacle or flesh, and their shared mind is the Holy Spirit.
We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit…
There are two personages who constitute the great matchless, governing and supreme power over all things… They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;—he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh… possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made: and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one: The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all—the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father… being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father…
What is the Father?
He is a personage of glory and of power…What is the Son?
First, he is a personage of tabernacle…Do the Father and the Son possess the same mind?
They do…What is this mind?
The Holy Spirit.Joseph Smith, 1835, Lectures on Faith: 5:1-3
https://lecturesonfaith.com/5/
Notably, there is no reference to the Father having a body or to three distinct beings. This is a stark contrast to later LDS teachings, which describe all three members of the Godhead as separate personages (except the Holy Ghost, who is a “personage of spirit”) and emphasize the corporeal nature of both the Father and the Son.
Also of note is that in the question section of the lecture, there is no mention of the famous First Vision. It would be a perfect time for Joseph Smith to have proclaimed what he saw in his vision, since just 3 years later in the manuscript that became the official Joseph Smith History he plainly states, “though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me… why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.” How did he then teach a directly contrary view of the Godhead if he had seen in a vision proof of the Godhead being different? He claims to have been persecuted for saying it, but that he could not deny it. It seems he could not deny it to his enemies, but also could not mention it to his friends and followers.
This theological development raises the question: if Joseph Smith really saw both the Father and the Son as distinct beings in 1820, as the official 1838 account claims, how could he have been so ambiguous about the nature of God in 1835 when composing the Lectures on Faith and not have mentioned them as distinct personages until 1838, 18 years after the event?
One logical conclusion is that his theological understanding of the Godhead was not fixed at the time he wrote his First Vision accounts, but developed over time. As his ideas evolved, particularly in the wake of exposure to different Christian doctrines and internal theological reflections, so too did his retrospective telling of the First Vision. The later versions, including the 1838 account written as part of a church history project, retroactively supported his maturing doctrines and were framed to solidify his prophetic authority and distinguish the LDS church from mainstream Christianity. But this cedes the point that these accounts really are just stories, and that the de facto canonized retelling is no more true than any of the others. To put it simply, Joseph was a fantastic storyteller, and his story evolved with time to give his religious claims more gravitas. They were not real, and thus we hit what many consider the last straw, or at least have been taught as the linchpin of the claims of the church.
The Godhead Today
The church teaches a simple version of the Godhead today, that was not taught in the early days of the church, and reference the First Vision as the obvious source of the two personages in the Godhead.
“We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (Articles of Faith 1:1). These three make up what we call the Godhead.
God has a resurrected body of flesh and bones. He is the Father of our spirits. He loves each of His children perfectly…
Jesus Christ also has a resurrected body of flesh and bones. He is God’s firstborn Son…
The Holy Ghost is the one member of the Godhead who does not have a physical body. He is a spirit…
Joseph Smith’s First Vision
Over time people have been confused about the Godhead. People have disagreed about what God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are like. This is one reason why the First Vision that Joseph Smith had was so important. He saw that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have bodies and are two separate beings.
Liahona, June 2021: Gospel Basics, What Is the Godhead?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/06/what-is-the-godhead
This lesson even spells it out as clearly as can be. They state that “people” (this must include Joseph Smith himself – even after his First Vision) “have been confused about the Godhead,” but they state that the First Vision is what finally cleared things up and is one reason why it is so important! The timeline doesn’t line up with this; if it had cleared things up, Joseph Smith wouldn’t have been so confused by the concept of the godhead. His Lectures on Faith are gibberish, as bad as the Nicene Creed, both defining the godhead as 3 and 1 and everything and nothing. The Lecture on Faith and even the earlier first visions certainly have a Trinitarian view of God, while the church today does not. Humerous that they can point to the very first vision as the proof, yet when looking closer at the proof, we must admit that the only thing they prove is that Joseph was “confused about the Godhead.”
The Make-or-Break Claim
This declaration by President Gordon B. Hinckley emphasises just how foundational the First Vision is to Mormonism. Unlike many other faith traditions that allow for nuance or metaphor in their origin stories, the LDS Church ties its truth claims directly to a single moment in history: Joseph Smith’s reported vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ in a grove of trees in 1820. According to Hinckley, if this event didn’t happen exactly as described, then the entire structure of the church — its priesthood authority, scriptures, and doctrines — collapses.
We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith.
When I was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes program, he asked me if I actually believed that. I replied, “Yes, sir. That’s the miracle of it.”
That is the way I feel about it. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.
Reflect upon it, my brethren and sisters. For centuries the heavens remained sealed. Good men and women, not a few—really great and wonderful people—tried to correct, strengthen, and improve their systems of worship and their body of doctrine. To them I pay honor and respect. How much better the world is because of their bold action. While I believe their work was inspired, it was not favored with the opening of the heavens, with the appearance of Deity.
Then in 1820 came that glorious manifestation in answer to the prayer of a boy who had read in his family Bible the words of James: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him”.
Upon that unique and wonderful experience stands the validity of this Church.
In all of recorded religious history there is nothing to compare with it. The New Testament recounts the baptism of Jesus, when the voice of God was heard and the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove. At the Mount of Transfiguration, Peter, James, and John saw the Lord transfigured before them. They heard the voice of the Father, but they did not see Him.
Why did both the Father and the Son come to a boy, a mere lad? For one thing, they came to usher in the greatest gospel dispensation of all time, when all of previous dispensations should be gathered and brought together in one.
Can anyone doubt that the age in which we live is the most wonderful in the history of the world? There has been a marvelous flowering of science, of medicine, of communication, of transportation unequaled in all the chronicles of mankind. Is it reasonable to submit that there should also be a flowering of spiritual knowledge as a part of this incomparable renaissance of light and understanding?
The instrument in this work of God was a boy whose mind was not cluttered by the philosophies of men. That mind was fresh and without schooling in the traditions of the day.
It is easy to see why people do not accept this account. It is almost beyond comprehension. And yet it is so reasonable. Those familiar with the Old Testament recognize the appearance of Jehovah to the prophets who lived in that comparatively simple time. Can they legitimately deny the need for an appearance of the God of heaven and His resurrected Son in this very complex period of the world’s history?
That They came, both of Them, that Joseph saw Them in Their resplendent glory, that They spoke to him, and that he heard and recorded Their words—of these remarkable things we testify.
I knew a so-called intellectual who said the Church was trapped by its history. My response was that without that history we have nothing. The truth of that unique, singular, and remarkable event is the pivotal substance of our faith.
Gordon B. Hinckley, LDS Church President, The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith, General Conference, October 2002
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2002/10/the-marvelous-foundation-of-our-faith
When the official foundational story is not open to doubt or contradiction, how do we face the historical inconsistencies and evolving narratives? No wonder when the church narrative is uncovered as false, typically the whole house of cards falls with it. Renowned modern historians know the narrative is false, yet somehow, some propose that even with the narrative being false, the church can still be true. This goes against the church president, Gordon B. Hinckley’s claims that, “Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud”.
Returning to the 1838 Account’s Persecution Focus
A notable discrepancy in the official narrative of Joseph Smith’s First Vision lies in the portrayal of early persecution against the church. According to the Joseph Smith–History account in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph claimed that he faced intense opposition after sharing his 1820 vision, specifically from a Methodist preacher to whom he confided the experience. Joseph claims to have shared his vision and to have been met not just with skepticism, but with outright hostility and widespread persecution. He frames this rejection as a significant trial, comparing himself to the Apostle Paul and describing a level of social backlash that, if true, would seem difficult to miss in the historical record.
21 Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.
22 I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me.
23 It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself.
24 However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise.
25 So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.
Joseph Smith–History 1:21-25, Pearl of Great Price, LDS Scripture
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?id=p21-p25#p21
There is a glaring issue, however. No historical evidence supports the claim that Joseph was persecuted for claiming to have seen God and Jesus in a vision in 1820. There are no contemporaneous accounts of anyone responding to this story with ridicule or violence. In fact, none of the abundant anti-Mormon writings in the 1830s mention such a vision, and it wasn’t included in the earliest versions of Joseph’s own story either. His 1832 account, the earliest known written version of the First Vision, doesn’t mention opposition, nor does it describe seeing two personages—it only mentions seeing “the Lord.” That account focuses instead on his concern for his personal sins and the forgiveness he sought.
This suggests that the dramatic narrative of persecution for declaring he’d seen God, presented so forcefully in the later 1838 version, was a retroactive construction. The theological landscape of the church had changed by then: God and Jesus were now taught as separate beings, and Joseph’s authority as a prophet needed reinforcement during a time of growing dissent and fragmentation within the early church. By asserting that he was persecuted for telling the truth, Joseph not only elevated his credibility as a martyr figure but also strengthened the developing church identity as a persecuted but divinely favored people.
The lack of historical corroboration for such persecution, combined with significant changes between various First Vision accounts over time, undermines the integrity of the official narrative. It appears to be less a faithful recounting of events and more a theological and institutional reworking to serve the needs of the growing religion. The canonized verses, then, rather than being reliable eyewitness testimony, serve as a potent example of history being rewritten to match later doctrinal developments, a pattern that continues to this day.
This story is still taught as a foundational moment in the LDS Church’s origin story, often emphasizing that Joseph was persecuted from the beginning for claiming to have seen God the Father and Jesus Christ. However, historical records do not support this narrative. In fact, there is no contemporary evidence from the 1820s that mentions the First Vision at all—not from Joseph’s family, neighbors, enemies, or even church critics. Notably, the earliest known written account of the vision wasn’t penned until 1832, and the more detailed and doctrinally significant 1838 account didn’t gain prominence until much later. Early church members and even critics focused almost entirely on the emergence of the Book of Mormon and the supernatural claims surrounding its origin, not on a vision of deity. Even the church’s own publications in the 1830s make no mention of the First Vision as the reason for persecution. This silence undermines the modern portrayal of the vision as the catalyst for early hostility and highlights that it was not central to the church’s identity or origin at the time. The story of persecution tied to the First Vision appears to be a retroactive construction designed to bolster Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims, not a reflection of the historical reality.
A Christian Perspective
Again, according to the official 1838 account, young Joseph prayed in the woods and was visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ as two distinct, separate beings. This vision, and what it teaches about the Godhead, sets it apart from mainstream Christianity, which traditionally holds to the Trinity—the belief that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one being in three persons. For anyone familiar with traditional Christian teachings, the idea that God and Jesus could stand side by side as two physically distinct individuals presents a radical departure from Christian doctrine. This is not just an unusual theological claim, it directly challenges fundamental Christian beliefs. If a Christian child had experienced such a vision, recognizing its contradiction with the doctrine of the Trinity, it would likely have been the most unforgettable and controversial aspect of the experience.
Why Was This Not Emphasized Sooner?
One of the more puzzling aspects of the First Vision is the evolution of its details over time. The earliest recorded account, written twelve years after the fact, in 1832, only mentions Jesus, without reference to God the Father appearing beside Him. It wasn’t until 1838—six years later—that Joseph Smith described two personages. Given the significance of such a vision, it raises questions as to why this detail was omitted in earlier retellings. As well as why the first vision story was entirely omitted from church discussion for decades. For any traditional Christian, this inconsistency is significant. If Joseph Smith had truly been raised in a devout Christian home, he would have been well aware of the implications of seeing two distinct Gods. Yet, this world-shattering revelation was not a primary focus of his earliest accounts, and it wasn’t even mentioned until much later on. Such an omission is difficult to reconcile with the claim that this was a literal and accurate event.
Mormon Conditioning and the Normalization of a Radical Idea
Within Mormonism, the belief in God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate beings is taught from an early age, making it a familiar and accepted doctrine among members. However, to those outside the faith, particularly traditional Christians, this idea is jarring, unsettling, and even heretical. The fact that this doctrine is embraced without question by lifelong members suggests a level of conditioning that removes the strangeness of the claim.
If the First Vision truly occurred in 1820 as described in the 1838 account, why wasn’t this shocking theological distinction emphasized from the very beginning? The way this story evolved raises doubts about its authenticity and raises important questions about its purpose.
Share Your Perspective
Ultimately, the discrepancies in the First Vision accounts and the changing theology surrounding the Godhead point not to a singular, revelatory event that defined Joseph’s theology from the start, but to a fluid and adaptive development of doctrine over time. This historical context challenges the church’s current narrative and invites deeper inquiry into how foundational events are remembered, reshaped, and canonized in religious traditions.
For those who have left or questioned Mormonism, how did learning about the different versions of the First Vision impact faith and understanding? wasmormon.org provides a platform to document these experiences and help others navigate their own faith transitions. Personal stories matter—if former members do not tell them, church leaders will.
More reading:
- Timeline of the First Vision Story and Development
- Joseph Smith and “The” “First” “Vision”
- The Strange Hidden First Vision Account of 1832
- Special Witnesses – Have Mormon Apostles Seen Jesus?
- If The First Vision Did Not Occur, This Work Is A Fraud – Hinckley
- Mormon Binary Thinking and The Great Sham
- Why Worry about Different Versions of the First Vision
- Misleading Mormon Thoughts On The First Vision Since 1970
- Mother Knows Best – Joseph Smith’s Mother on The First Vision
- Other First Visions, Which are Not of This Fold
- Church Mischaracterized Since 1830: Fact or Fiction
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng&id=p17#p17
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2002/10/the-marvelous-foundation-of-our-faith
- https://lecturesonfaith.com/5/
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/first-vision-accounts/1832-account
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/first-vision-accounts/1835-account
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?id=p21-p25#p21
- https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/the-lectures-on-faith-a-case-study-in-decanonization-3/
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/06/what-is-the-godhead