Today, the First Vision stands as one of the central pillars of Mormon belief. Missionaries introduce it as the beginning of the Restoration. Members cite it as the ultimate evidence that God and Jesus Christ are two distinct beings, and that Joseph Smith was chosen as a prophet.
But this was not always the case. In fact, early Latter-day Saints didn’t know anything about a “First Vision” at all.
An Unknown Story
Joseph Smith didn’t share a story about seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ in his youth during the early years of the church. For more than a decade after the supposed event, there is no record of him speaking publicly about it. He didn’t even write it down until years later — and when he did, he left us with multiple, conflicting accounts. The story claims to have taken place in 1820, yet wasn’t written for the first time until twelve years later, in 1832, and was forgotten. Another decade later, in 1842, the version was written, which was canonized in 1880, that most are familiar with today.
In some versions, Joseph said he saw an angel. In another, “the Lord.” And in yet another, two personages, identified as God and Jesus. The language, tone, and theology shift noticeably from one account to the next, showing how his understanding of the divine — and the story itself — evolved over time. In fact, the differences between the canonized version and the earliest written account were so stark and strange that when it was discovered in Joseph’s journal, it was cut out and hidden for decades in a church safe!
Early Saints Didn’t Know the Story
Despite how central the First Vision has become, it played no role in early Mormon belief or conversion. The earliest church members and pioneers didn’t testify about it. They didn’t teach it. They didn’t even know it existed. There was no concept of the first vision, and if it were brought up, the most informed believers would have thought it was when Nephi Moroni visited Joseph to reveal the location of the Gold Plates.
Their testimonies were built on the Book of Mormon, on Joseph’s prophetic calling, and on the spiritual gifts they witnessed in the community. Even Brigham Young and other early leaders emphasized the Book of Mormon and Joseph’s revelations, but made no mention of a divine visitation in a grove.
The reason is simple: the lore hadn’t been written yet.
Evolving Theology and the Godhead
When we compare early church teachings with later doctrine, another gap becomes clear. Many early Latter-day Saints — and even the Book of Mormon itself — express Trinitarian ideas. In fact, the earliest edition of the Book of Mormon is even more Trinitarian than the current one. Verses were later modified to reflect the developing theology of a separate Father and Son.
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.
Gordon B Hinckley, LDS Church President
Church leaders today point to the First Vision as the moment when Joseph learned that the Godhead consists of three distinct beings. But if that understanding truly came from the First Vision, it took decades to influence Mormon theology — and only after the vision story itself was canonized into church history.
Making the Vision a “Make-or-Break” Story
The First Vision didn’t become a defining feature of Mormonism until long after Joseph’s death. Over time, it was woven into the church’s official origin story, reshaping how members understood revelation, prophets, and even the nature of God.
By the mid-20th century, the story had become non-negotiable. As Elder Hugh B. Brown declared in The Abundant Life (1965),
The first vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith constitutes the groundwork of the Church which was later organized. If this First Vision was but a figment of Joseph Smith’s imagination, then the Mormon Church is what its detractors declare it to be – a wicked and deliberate imposture.
Elder Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life (1965), Pages 310-311
That’s an enormous weight to rest on a vision unknown to the first generation of believers.
How It Became “All or Nothing”
BYU historian Steven C. Harper explored this shift in his April 2020 BYU Studies article, “Raising the Stakes: How Joseph Smith’s First Vision Became All or Nothing”.
[Joseph Smith] recorded at least four accounts of this experience between 1832 and 1842, and a few of his contemporaries wrote secondary accounts during his lifetime. Generally speaking, however, the earliest Latter-day Saints did not know much, if anything, about Joseph Smith’s first vision. It was not typically taught by missionaries or regarded as a point of orthodox belief. That changed gradually after it was canonized in 1880. In 2002, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley stated, “We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith.” He added, “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.” Clearly the stakes have been raised over time. Joseph Smith’s first vision is exponentially more important to Latter-day Saints now than it was when the Church was restored in 1830. Perhaps as an effect of that newfound importance, today the vision is a battleground—people negotiate their identities and relationships relative to it as they join or leave the Church, as they fight for or against the faith…
In the nineteenth century, no one worked harder or more effectively than Orson Pratt to make Latter-day Saints aware of the vision and install it as their founding event.14 Pratt apparently coined the term first vision in 1849. In the decades that followed, almost no one preached on the topic besides Orson Pratt, but he preached it effectively and often. By 1880, he would ensure that a mere mention of that pair of words evoked a shared meaning in the minds of many Saints. Even so, in the half century between 1830 and 1880, though Orson Pratt developed and repeated a narrative of the vision based largely on Joseph’s 1838–39 account, that version of the Church’s origins was not universally shared, not even by Pratt’s fellow Apostles.
Early in 1850, thirty-year-old Franklin Richards, an Apostle for a little over a year, arrived in Britain to lead more than 30,000 British Saints. He brought with him an idea for a new “collection of revelations.” Published in 1851 as the Pearl of Great Price, the salmon-colored booklet included revelations Joseph had published in periodicals but had not canonized or put in a book. These included his 1838-39 account of his first vision.
Three decades later, at the Church’s semiannual conference in October 1880, Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Smith’s nephew and a counselor to Church President John Taylor, proposed that the Pearl of Great Price become canon, and the assembled Saints unanimously consented. Thus, Joseph Smith’s 1838 account of his vision became scripture. Canonization requires a community.
Harper, Steven C. (2020) “Raising the Stakes: How Joseph Smith’s First Vision Became All or Nothing,” BYU Studies: Vol. 59: Iss. 2, Article 4.
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol59/iss2/4
Harper shows how, over time, the story was elevated from a personal spiritual experience into the foundational myth of the church (though from a faithful perspective). What was once obscure and secondary became the cornerstone, making belief in it synonymous with faith in Mormonism itself.
Rewriting the Church’s Origin Story
The timing of the First Vision’s rise to prominence is no coincidence. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the church faced an existential crisis. Its central revelation and defining practice — plural marriage — was under intense legal and social attack. U.S. government pressure threatened to dismantle the church entirely. To survive, leaders needed to distance themselves from polygamy without undermining the prophetic authority of Joseph Smith, who had introduced it as divine commandment.
By canonizing the First Vision and elevating it as the foundation of Mormonism, church leaders found a way to preserve Joseph’s prophetic image while quietly diminishing the importance of his more controversial revelations. The story of a young boy seeing God became a safer, more unifying narrative than one of secret plural wives and divine marriage covenants. It allowed members to celebrate Joseph’s calling without defending his polygamous teachings — a strategic shift from the bedroom to the grove.
This delicate balancing act reshaped the collective memory of the church. By redefining Joseph’s greatest revelation as his vision of God and Christ, leaders effectively replaced polygamy with purity in the story of Mormon origins. The First Vision became the new cornerstone — not just of theology, but of identity — allowing the church to move forward with a revised narrative that was both faith-promoting and socially survivable.
The First Vision has grown from obscurity to dominance — from an unwritten story to the defining moment of the Restoration. For early Saints, it was unknown. For modern Saints, it’s everything. If the earliest believers didn’t need the First Vision to find faith, why must today’s members still make it the cornerstone of theirs?
Apologists will claim that the First Vision didn’t matter in the early days of the Mormon church because they considered it a personal story of Joseph Smith, rather than a church story. But really it’s because they didn’t even know about it, and it slowly picked up momentum with the help of Orson Pratt and then became canonized at a time when the church identity was falling apart.
Share Your Story
We believe that examining our history honestly is an act of faith — not betrayal. Just as the church has reshaped its own story over time, many of us have gone through our own reshaping as we wrestled with questions, doubts, and discoveries. If you’ve struggled with the First Vision narrative, with church history, or with the difficult process of reconciling what you were taught with what you’ve learned, you’re not alone.
Many of us once had a “shelf” — a place to set aside uncomfortable facts, unanswerable questions, and uneasy feelings. But when that shelf grew heavy and finally broke, it wasn’t the end of faith; it was the beginning of honesty. Talking about that process is often taboo in Mormon culture, yet it’s essential for healing and understanding.
That’s why wasmormon.org exists: to say the quiet parts out loud. By sharing our experiences collectively, we remind one another that doubt is human, questioning is healthy, and truth can stand up to scrutiny. Your story — of belief, of struggle, of change — matters. Add your voice to the growing chorus of those who have stepped forward to tell their stories and help others feel seen, safe, and empowered to make wise choices for their own faith and lives. Your journey deserves to be heard!
More reading:
- Timeline of the First Vision Story and Development
- Joseph Smith and “The” “First” “Vision”
- The Strange Hidden First Vision Account of 1832
- Why Worry about Different Versions of the First Vision
- Misleading Mormon Thoughts On The First Vision Since 1970
- If The First Vision Did Not Occur, This Work Is A Fraud – Hinckley
- Mother Knows Best – Joseph Smith’s Mother on The First Vision
- https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/unxYjBUdGW
- https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol59/iss2/4/
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqWgMnVR6Wg