In 1983, Gordon B. Hinckley, then Second Counselor in the First Presidency, but later President of the Church spoke to students at the Salt Lake Institute of Religion. An edited version of this address was then given as the First Presidency Message in the October 1984 Ensign. The message, God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear, states that in his view, the gospel is simple and he doesn’t “fret over the mysteries.” He uses as an example that he is not worried that Joseph Smith recorded multiple versions of his First Vision. He dismisses the existence of different version of the vision which he hails as the founding event of the church. He excuses the differences found in these accounts as simple and logical without ever mentioning any differences between the accounts. He is calming members who have heard of these strange accounts, and hopes they will not go looking.
To me the gospel is not a great mass of theological jargon. It is a simple and beautiful and logical thing, with one quiet truth following another in orderly sequence. I do not fret over the mysteries. I do not worry whether the heavenly gates swing or slide. I am only concerned that they open.
I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time.
First Presidency Message, “God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear”, By President Gordon B. Hinckley, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, October 1984 Ensign. An edited version of an address given 5 November 1983 to Latter-day Saint college students at the Salt Lake Institute of Religion.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1984/10/god-hath-not-given-us-the-spirit-of-fear?lang=eng&id=p50#p50
Some point to quotes like this as proof that the church didn’t hide anything and that they’ve been upfront about the existence of multiple first vision accounts. But mentioning these accounts and dismissing them in the same sentence is not the same as transparency.
Hinckley does mention that “Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision,” but he also compares this to the fact that “there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament.” He states that these different gospel accounts are written with differing perceptions and purposes. He doesn’t however distinguish that the gospels were written by four different individuals, but the first vision accounts are all the same individual. He also avoids numerating how many versions of the first vision there are, or that they have any differences.
He equates the simple explanation of the four gospels containing their own perceptions, events and purpose at the time of writing to the multiple accounts of the first vision. So, President Hinckley, how many versions are there? What are the differences and how do we reconcile these differences? Are the differences easy to dismiss on account of the purpose of the account?
If these accounts are all consistently telling the same story, which also is verified with other contemporary evidence and accounts, we can believe them. But we know that one of these accounts was so different, strange, and startling that Joseph Fielding Smith, a previous church president and church historian and grand-nephew to Joseph Smith, tore it out and hid it from others. He must not have thought it as nonchalantly insignificant as Hinckley makes it out to be in his statement, or perhaps Gordon B. Hinckley was expertly skilled in the art of gaslighting.
The First Vision accounts
Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), provided multiple accounts of his “First Vision”—the experience he described as his initial encounter with God and Jesus Christ. These accounts were written over several years and contain some variations in detail, which have been the subject of much discussion and analysis.
1. 1832:
- Context: This is the earliest known account, written in Joseph Smith’s own handwriting in a personal history. It was written in a letterbook but never publicly known of until the 1960s. This version was removed from the letterbook and hidden in a safe when Joseph Fielding Smith first found it because it was so strange and he only brought it out when word leaked of its existence.
- Summary: Smith describes being concerned about his sins and the state of the world as he had concluded from the Bible that mankind had apostatized from the true faith and no denomination was build upon the gospel. He prays for forgiveness and, in response, sees the Lord (singular) who forgives him. There is no mention of multiple beings.
- Key Differences: Focuses on personal forgiveness; only one divine being is mentioned; less emphasis from God on church apostasy.
2. 1835:
- Context: Written in response to a visit from a Jewish convert, Robert Matthews, and recorded in a journal by Smith’s scribe, Warren Parrish.
- Summary: Smith describes praying in a secluded place and being confronted by an adversarial force. He then sees “a personage” who appears in a pillar of fire, followed by another personage. They tell him his sins are forgiven and warn him that all churches are wrong. This account mentions the presence of angels.
- Key Differences: Introduces a second personage, suggests a more dramatic, supernatural battle, and includes angels. Does not name these personages as God or Jesus.
3. 1838:
- Context: This is the official account published in the church’s periodical, Times and Seasons, and later canonized in The Pearl of Great Price.
- Summary: Smith recounts being confused by the competing denominations and wanting to know which church was true. He prays in a grove of trees and sees two personages (God the Father and Jesus Christ), who instruct him not to join any of the existing churches, as they are all wrong. This account became the most widely known and the basis for official church teachings.
- Key Differences: Emphasizes the religious confusion of the time, clearly identifies two personages (the Father and the Son), and focuses on the apostasy of all existing churches.
4. 1842:
- Context: Written in a letter to a Chicago newspaper editor, John Wentworth, and later published as the “Wentworth Letter.”
- Summary: Smith briefly describes his vision of two personages who are God the Father and Jesus Christ, providing a straightforward summary that aligns closely with the 1838 account but is more concise.
- Key Differences: A concise overview intended for a broader audience; maintains the narrative of the two personages but omits details like the demonic attack.
Other Accounts:
- Orson Pratt (1840) and Orson Hyde (1842): Two early church leaders wrote their own versions based on what they had heard from Smith. Pratt’s account mentions the brightness and glory surrounding Smith and the personages, while Hyde’s includes additional commentary on the religious climate of the time.
- David Nye White (1843) and Alexander Neibaur (1844): Both recorded their recollections of conversations with Smith. These accounts offer slight variations, like different descriptions of the grove or the appearance of the divine beings.
Summary of Key Variations:
- Number of Divine Beings: Some accounts mention only one personage (The Lord), while others specify two (God the Father and Jesus Christ).
- Focus of the Vision: Earlier accounts emphasize Smith’s personal forgiveness and search for truth, while later ones stress the apostasy of all existing churches.
- Details of the Experience: The level of supernatural detail (such as encounters with evil forces or the presence of angels) varies between accounts.
These variations have led to different interpretations of the First Vision, with believers often seeing the differences as complementary, while critics view them as inconsistencies that challenge the vision’s authenticity. What was your experience in learning about the varying first vision accounts? Did the existence of different accounts or the differences in the accounts cause you to worry? Did you think the 1832 account was strange? What does it mean that church leaders hid this account for so long? Do the leaderships dismissal of these differences feel like gaslighting? Please consider sharing your own story of faith crisis and deconstruction at wasmormon.org.
More reading:
- We Want Nothing Secret Nor Underhanded – Not The Mormon Church Today
- The Strange Hidden First Vision Account of 1832
- Church as transparent as it knows how to be
- Misleading Mormon Thoughts On The First Vision Since 1970
- http://www.mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm
- https://mit.irr.org/category/first-vision
- https://meataftermilk.org/2014/07/14/artwork-the-first-vision/
- https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/firstvision-overview