FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
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.