The New Mormon History
D. Michael Quinn, editor
The Significance of Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” in Mormon Thought
James B. Allen
[p.37] In the year 1838 Joseph Smith began dictating his History of the Church. The history commenced with the now famous account of what has been termed the “first vision,” in which he told of the appearance to him in 1820 of two heavenly personages. The vision, according to the Mormon prophet, came as a result of his prayerful inquiry concerning which church to join, and in it he was forbidden to join any of them, for all were wrong. Although not specifically named in the story, the two personages have been identified by Latter-day Saints as God the Father and Jesus Christ; Joseph Smith indicated that the one said of the other, “This is My Beloved Son, Hear Him!”
This singular story has achieved a position of unique importance in the traditions and official doctrines of the Mormon church. Belief in the vision is one of the fundamentals to which faithful members give assent. Its importance is second only to belief in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. The story is an essential part of the lessons given by Mormon missionaries to prospective converts, and its acceptance is necessary before baptism. The nature and importance of the vision is the subject of frequent sermons by church members in all meetings and by authorities of the church in semi-annual conferences.
Not only is belief in the first vision of primary importance to [p. 38] Mormonism, but the story of the vision has what might be termed a number of secondary, although highly important, utilitarian functions. Joseph Smith’s original purpose in writing the story was to clarify facts that had been distorted in the public mind. In our time, however, it is used by church leaders and teachers to demonstrate for believers other aspects of the Mormon faith: the idea that God actually hears and answers prayers; the concept that there is a personal devil who tries to stop the progress of truth; and perhaps most fundamental of all, the Mormon doctrine that the divine Godhead are actually separate, distinct, physical personages, as opposed to the Trinitarian concept of traditional Christianity.
The person who would understand the history of any institution must be concerned not only with chronology but also with an understanding of what the people in that institution were thinking, what they were being taught, and how these ideas compare with present-day thought. In connection with the story of the vision then, it is important to ask certain questions: When was it first told? When was it first published? Did it have the significant place in early Mormon thought that it has today? If not, when did it begin to take on its present significance in the writings and teachings of the church? Some thoughts on these questions might open the door to a better understanding of Mormon history and also demonstrate by example the gradually changing pattern of thought which one would expect to find in any church.
According to Joseph Smith, he told the story of the vision immediately after it happened in the early spring of 1820. As a result, he said, he received immediate criticism in the community. There is little if any evidence, however, that by the early 1830s Joseph Smith was telling the story in public. At least if he was telling it, no one seemed to consider it important enough to have recorded it at the time, and no one was criticizing him for it. Not even in his own history did Joseph Smith mention being criticized in this period for telling the story of the first vision. The interest, rather, was in the Book of Mormon and the various angelic visitations connected with its origin.
The fact that none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830s, none of the publications of the church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision is convincing evidence that at best it received only limited circulation in those [p. 39] early days. In February 1830, for example, a farmer who lived about fifty miles from Palmyra, New York, wrote a letter describing the religious fervor in western New York and particularly the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. No mention was made, however, of the idea that Joseph Smith had beheld Deity.1 The earliest anti-Mormon literature attacked the Book of Mormon and the character of Joseph Smith but never mentioned the first vision. Alexander Campbell, who had some reason to be bitter against the Mormons because of the conversion of his colleague Sidney Rigdon in 1830, published one of the first denunciations of Joseph Smith in 1832. It was entitled Delusions: An Analysis of the Book of Mormon and contained no mention of the first vision. In 1834 E. D. Howe published Mormonism Unvailed, which contained considerable damaging material against Joseph Smith but again no mention of the first vision. In 1839 John Corrill, a former Mormon, published a history of the Mormons, but he made no reference at all to Joseph Smith’s claim to having conversed with the members of the Godhead. In 1842 J. B. Turner published Mormonism in All Ages, which included one of the most bitter denunciations of the Mormon prophet yet printed, but even at this late date no mention was made of the first vision.2
Not until 1843, when the New York Spectator printed a reporter’s account of an interview with Joseph Smith, did a non-Mormon source publish any reference to the story of the first vision.3 In 1844 I. Daniel Rupp published An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States, which contained an account of the vision provided by Joseph Smith himself. After this time non-Mormon sources began to refer to the story. It seems probable, however, that as far as non-Mormons were concerned there was little if any awareness of it in the 1830s. The popular image of Mormon belief centered around such things as the Book of Mormon, the missionary zeal, and the concept of Zion in Missouri.
As far as Mormon literature is concerned, there was no specific reference to Joseph Smith’s first vision in any published material in the 1830s. Joseph Smith’s history, which was begun in 1838, was not published until it ran serially in the Times and Seasons in 1842. The famous “Wentworth Letter,” which contained a much less detailed account of the vision, appeared 1 March 1842 in the same periodical. Introductory material to the Book of Mormon as well as publicity about it told of Joseph Smith’s obtaining the gold [p. 40] plates and of angelic visitations, but nothing was printed that suggested earlier visitations. In 1833 the church published the Book of Commandments, forerunner to the present Doctrine and Covenants, and again no reference was made to Joseph’s first vision, although several references were made to the Book of Mormon and the circumstances of its origin. The first regular periodical to be published by the church was The Evening and the Morning Star, but its pages reveal no effort to tell the story of the first vision to its readers. Nor do the pages of the Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate, printed in Kirtland, Ohio, from October 1834 to September 1836. In this newspaper Oliver Cowdery, who was second only to Joseph Smith in the early organization of the church, published a series of letters dealing with the origin of the church. These letters were written with the approval of Joseph Smith, but they contained no mention of any vision prior to those connected with the Book of Mormon. In 1835 the Doctrine and Covenants was printed at Kirtland, Ohio, and its preface declared that it contained “the leading items of religion which we have professed to believe.” Included in the book were the “Lectures on Faith,” a series of seven lectures which had been prepared for the School of the Prophets in Kirtland in 1834-35. It is interesting to note that in demonstrating the doctrine that the Godhead consists of two separate personages, no mention was made of Joseph Smith having seen them, nor was any reference made to the first vision in any part of the publication.4 The Times and Seasons began publication in 1839, but as indicated above, the story of the vision was not told in its pages until 1842. From all this it would appear that the general church membership did not receive information about the first vision until the 1840s and that the story certainly did not hold the prominent place in Mormon thought that it does today.
The story of the first vision had little if any importance in missionary work in the 1830s. The best missionary tool in that day was the Book of Mormon, and most early converts came into the church as a result either of reading the book or of hearing the “testimony” of others who declared their personal knowledge of its authenticity. Such important early converts as Parley P. Pratt, Sidney Rigdon, Brigham Young, and Heber C. Kimball all joined because of their conversion through the Book of Mormon, and none of their early writings indicates that any understanding or knowledge of the first vision was in any way part of their conversion. John Corrill tells [p. 41] of his first contact with Mormons through Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, and Ziba Peterson. These were the famous missionaries to the “Lamanites” of 1830. Their message concerned the Book of Mormon, but Corrill reported nothing of a prior vision.5 When Parley P. Pratt converted John Taylor in 1836, the story he told him was of angelic visitations connected with the Book of Mormon, of priesthood restoration, and of the organization of the church. There is no evidence that anything was said of the first vision. Rather, Taylor was converted on the basis of the Book of Mormon and the fact that Mormonism taught certain principles which he had already concluded were essential and which he had been waiting to hear someone preach.6
The first important missionary pamphlet of the church, the Voice of Warning, published in 1837 by Parley P. Pratt, contains long sections on items important to missionaries of the 1830s, such as fulfillment of prophecy, the Book of Mormon, external evidence of the book’s authenticity, the Resurrection, and the nature of revelation, but nothing on the first vision. It seems evident that at least in the 1830s, it was not considered necessary for prospective converts to Mormonism to know the story. It is assumed, of course, that if they believed in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as well as the other claims of Joseph Smith to divine authority and revelation, the story of the first vision would not have been difficult for them to believe once they heard it.
To summarize, it is apparent that the story of Joseph Smith’s first vision was not given general circulation in the 1830s. Neither Mormon nor non-Mormon publications made reference to it, and it is evident that the general membership of the church knew little if anything about it. Belief in the story certainly was not a prerequisite for conversion, and it is obvious that the story was not being used to illustrate other points of doctrine. In this respect at least, Mormon thought of the 1830s was different from Mormon thought of later years.
A possible explanation for the fact that the story of the vision was not generally known in the 1830s can be found in Joseph Smith’s conviction that experiences such as these should be kept from the general public because of their sacred nature. It is noted by some that in 1838 he declared that his basic reason for telling it even then, years after it happened, was in response to “reports which have been put [p. 42] in circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons” who had distorted the facts.7 Furthermore, the young prophet said that he had been severely rebuffed the first time he told the story in 1820; and since it represented one of his most profound spiritual experiences, he could well have decided to circulate it only privately until he could feel certain that in relating it he would not receive again the general ridicule of friends.
Perhaps the closest one may come to seeing a contemporary diarist’s account of the story is in the journal of Alexander Neibaur, which is located in LDS church archives. It must be observed, however, that Neibaur did not become associated with Joseph Smith until the 1840s and that he did not hear the story until well after other accounts of the vision, including Joseph Smith’s, had been written and published.
In spite of the foregoing discussion, there is some evidence to suggest that the story of Joseph Smith’s first vision was known, probably on a limited basis, during the formative decade of church history. One of the most significant documents of that period yet discovered was brought to light in 1965 by Paul R. Cheesman, then a graduate student at Brigham Young University. This is a handwritten manuscript composed about 1832, dictated and written in part by Joseph Smith. It contains an account of the early experiences of the Mormon prophet and includes a version of the story of the first vision. While the story varies in some details from the version presently accepted, enough is there to indicate that at least as early as 1832 Joseph Smith contemplated writing and perhaps publishing it. The manuscript had been in the Church Historian’s office for many years, and yet few if any who saw it realized its significance. The existence of the manuscript, of course, does not prove or disprove the authenticity of the story, but it demonstrates the fact that in the early 1830s the story of the vision was beginning to find place in the formulation of Mormon thought.8 Fawn Brodie suggested that the story of Joseph Smith’s first vision was something he invented after 1834.9 This argument must be revised.
Another document of almost equal importance was brought to light by a member of the staff at the Church Historian’s office in the mid-1960s.10 It is located in the back of Book A-1 of the handwritten manuscript of the History of the Church (commonly referred to as the “Manuscript History”). The writing of the “Manuscript History” [p. 43] was supervised by Joseph Smith beginning in 1838. Under the date of 9 November 1835, the story is told of a visit to Joseph Smith by a man calling himself Joshua, the Jewish Minister. The conversation naturally turned to religion, and it is recorded that the Mormon prophet told his guest “the circumstances connected with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, as recorded in the former part of this history.”11 From reading the “Manuscript History,” therefore, as well as the printed History of the Church, one would get the impression that at this time Joseph Smith related only the Book of Mormon story. In the back of the book, however, is a revealing document that almost certainly comprises the original notes from which the “Manuscript History” was later compiled and is actually a daily account of Joseph Smith’s activities in 1835 as recorded by a scribe. The importance of the manuscript here lies in the fact that the scribe wrote down what Joseph Smith said to his visitor, and he began not by telling the story of the discovery of the Book of Mormon but with an account of the first vision. Again, the details of the story vary somewhat from the accepted version, but the manuscript at least demonstrates that by 1835 the story had been told to someone.
The only additional evidence that Joseph Smith’s story was being circulated in the 1830s is found in reminiscences of a few people who were close to him in that decade. While reminiscences are obviously open to question, for it is easy for anyone after many years to read back into his own history things which he accepts at the time of the telling, some of them at least sound convincing enough to suggests that the story might have been circulating on a limited basis. In 1893 Edward Stevenson published his reminiscences. He first saw the Mormon prophet in 1834, and according to Stevenson: “In that same year, 1834, in the midst of many large congregations the Prophet testified with great power concerning the visit of the Father and the Son, and the conversation he had with them. Never before did I feel such power as was manifested on these occasions… . We were proud, indeed, to entertain one who had conversed with the Father and the Son, and been under the tuition of an angel from heaven.”12
Lorenzo Snow heard Joseph Smith for the first time when he was seventeen years old. Years later he recalled the experience in these words: “As I looked upon him and listened, I thought to myself that a man bearing such a wonderful testimony as he did, and having [p. 44] such a countenance as he possessed, could hardly be a false prophet… . for when he testified that he had had a conversation with Jesus the Son of God, and talked with Him personally, as Moses talked with God upon Mount Sinai, and that he also heard the voice of the Father, he was telling something that he either knew to be false or to be positively true.”13
If this statement is accurate, it means that Joseph Smith was telling the important story in 1831. When reading the statement in context, however, it will be noted that Snow did not say that he heard Joseph tell the actual story—only that he heard him testify that he had conversed with the Son and heard the voice of the Father. Other reminiscences may be found which would indicate that the story was being told in the 1830s, but the weight of evidence suggests that it was not a matter of common knowledge, even among church members, in the earliest years of Mormon history.
The question for historical consideration, then, is when and how did the story of Joseph Smith assume its present importance not only as a test of faith for the Mormons but also as a tool for illustrating and supporting other church doctrines.
It seems apparent that after Joseph Smith decided to write the story in 1838 the way was clear for its use as a missionary tool. It is not known how generally the membership of the church knew of the story by the end of the decade, but in 1840 Orson Pratt published in England a missionary tract entitled Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records. This early pamphlet contained a detailed account of the first vision which elaborated upon several details that Joseph Smith touched on only briefly. Smith’s own account was published in 1842. In the same year Orson Hyde published in Germany a pamphlet entitled A Cry From the Wilderness, a Voice from the Dust of the Earth. This also contained an elaborate account of the vision. It is evident then that in the early 1840s the story of Joseph Smith’s first vision took its place alongside the story of the Book of Mormon as a missionary message, and it is possible that Joseph Smith’s decision to write it in 1838 was a sort of “go ahead” for this action.
By the 1850s the story of the vision had become an important part of church literature. In 1851 it appeared in the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price, published in England by Franklin D. Richards. This volume was accepted as one of the “standard works” of the Mormon church in 1880.14 By this time the story had become well known both to members and non-members alike and was being used as a basic missionary tool.
A more difficult question to answer concerns the various utilitarian functions of the story. As far as any recorded material reveals, Joseph Smith never used the story of his vision to illustrate specific doctrinal teachings.
When did church members begin to make such use of the story? Apparently the early teachers of the church relied on scriptural evidence alone to demonstrate the Mormon doctrine of God, and not until well into the Utah period did they begin to use Joseph Smith’s story to illustrate it. One of the earliest recorded sermons to make this use of the story was given by George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency on 7 October 1883. Said Cannon:
“Joseph Smith, inspired of God, came forth and declared that God lived. Ages had passed and no one had beheld Him. The fact that he existed was like a dim tradition in the minds of the people. The fact that Jesus lived was only supposed to be the case because eighteen hundred years before men had seen him… . The character of God–whether He was a personal being, whether His center was nowhere, and His circumference everywhere, were matters of speculation. No one had seen him. No one had seen any one who had seen an angel… . Is it a wonder that men were confused? that there was such a variety of opinion respecting the character and being of God? … Brother Joseph, as I said, startled the world. It stood aghast at the statement which he made, and the testimony which he bore. He declared that he had seen God. He declared that he had seen Jesus Christ… .
“After that revelation faith began to grow up in men’s minds and hearts. Speculation concerning the being of God ceased among those who received the testimony of Joseph Smith. He testified that God was a being of body, that He had a body, that man was in his likeness, that Jesus was the exact counterpart of the Father, and that the Father and Jesus were two distinct personages, as distinct as an earthly father and an earthly son.”15
Probably there were earlier sermons or writings that used the story of the first vision to demonstrate the Mormon doctrine of God. Evidence indicates, however, that they were rare and that only gradually did this use of the story find place in the traditions of the [p. 46] church. Suffice it to say that by the turn of the century the device was regularly used. James E. Talmage, for example, in his Articles of Faith used the story to illustrate the godhead doctrine, and Elder Joseph Fielding Smith in Essentials in Church History makes a major point of this doctrinal contribution. In 1961 the church required all missionaries to use the story in their first lesson as part of the dialogue designed to prove that the Father and the Son are distinct personages and that they have tangible bodies.
As the story of Joseph Smith’s vision was told and retold, both by himself and others, there were naturally some variations in detail. The account written about 1832 told of his youthful anxiety over the “welfare of my immortal soul” and over his sins as well as the sins of the world. Therefore, he declared, “I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and to obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord in the 16th year of my age a piller of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day came down from above and rested upon me and 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, go thy way walk in my Statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crycifyed for the world.”16
In this story only one personage was mentioned, the Son, for he spoke of having been crucified. If Edward Stevenson’s account is correct, however, he heard Joseph Smith say in 1834 that he had seen both the Father and the Son.
In 1835, when Joseph Smith’s scribe heard him tell the story to a visitor, the Mormon leader’s words were “nearly as follows”:
“Being wrought up in my mind respecting the subject of Religion, and looking at the different systems taught the children of men, I knew not who was right or who was wrong but considered it of the first importance to me that I should be right in matters of so much moment, matter involving eternal consequences. Being thus perplexed in mind I retired to the silent grove and there bowed down before the Lord, under a realising sense (if the Bible be true) ask and you shall receive knock and it shall be opened, seek and you shall find, and again, if any man lack wisdom, let of God [sic], who giveth to all men liberally & upbraideth not. Information was what I most desired, at this time and with a fixed determination to obtain it. I [p. 47] called on the Lord for the first time in the place above stated, or in other words, I made a fruitless attempt to pray My tongue seemed to be swollen in my mouth, so that I could not utter, I heard a noise behind me like some one walking towards me, I strove again to pray, but could not; the noise of walking seemed to draw nearer; I sprang upon my feet and looked around. but I saw no person, or thing that was calculated to produce the noise of walking. I kneeled again, my mouth was opened and my tongue loosed; I called on the Lord in mighty prayer. A pillar of fire appeared above my head; which presently rested down upon me, and filled me with unspeakable joy. 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 also unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I saw many angels in this vision.”17
In this account Joseph emphasized the difficulty he had in uttering his first prayer, and the “noise of walking” seems to suggest the evil opposition which became an essential element in the official version of the story. Furthermore, he told of having seen two persons, although one preceded the other. The two persons looked alike, and the second assured him that his sins had been forgiven. The most unusual statement, however, is Joseph’s declaration that he saw many angels in this vision.
When Smith finally dictated the “Manuscript History” in 1838, he told of his great uneasiness in the midst of the religious confusion of 1820 and his quest to determine which of the churches was right. After reading James 1:5 he retired to the woods and began to pray. In this account he told of a force of darkness which tried to stop him from proceeding, then the appearance in a pillar of light of two personages. When the light appeared, the force of darkness left. One of the personages said to Joseph, “This is my beloved Son, hear him.” The crux of the message from the Son was that he should join none of the churches, for all of them were wrong. “When I came to myself,” he said, “I found myself lying on my back looking up into Heaven.” 18 The story as told in Joseph Smith’s published history of 1842 and in the Pearl of Great Price does not differ appreciably from his manuscript history.
The account published by Orson Pratt in 1840 contains a great deal of amplification upon the story as told by Joseph Smith.19 [p. 48] He describes in more detail, for example, the problems running through young Joseph’s mind when he was “somewhere about fourteen or fifteen years old.” The appearance of the light is described in more vivid detail, and the whole account takes on a more dramatic air than any recorded story told by Joseph himself. Describing the light, for example, Pratt wrote: “as it drew nearer, it increased in brightness, and magnitude, so that, by the time that it reached the tops of the trees, the whole wilderness, for some distance around, was illuminated in a most glorious and brilliant manner. He expected to have seen the leaves and boughs of the trees consumed, as soon as the light came in contact with them; but, perceiving that it did not produce that effect, he was encouraged with the hopes of being able to endure its presence. It continued descending, slowly, until it rested upon the earth, and he was enveloped in the midst of it. When it first came upon him, it produced a peculiar sensation throughout his whole system; and, immediately, his mind was caught away, from the natural objects with which he was surrounded; and he was enwrapped in a heavenly vision, and saw two glorious personages.20 According to this account the young man was informed that his sins were forgiven and that the “fullness of the gospel” would be made known to him in the future. Neither of these statements is contained in the Pearl of Great Price account, but the first one is included in both the 1832 and 1835 manuscripts.
The Wentworth Letter published in 1842 and Rupp’s history published in 1844 contain identical but very short accounts of the vision. The force of opposition was not mentioned, and the description of the visitation was shorter than in Joseph’s earlier account. He told, however, of seeing two personages while he was “enwrapped in a heavenly vision” and said that “they” told him that all religious denominations were believing incorrect doctrines. The idea that the “fullness of the gospel” should be given to him in the future was recorded here in agreement with Orson Pratt’s account.
Orson Hyde’s account published in 1842 is similar to the stories told by Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt. The two personages were not defined or quoted directly, but they were said to exactly resemble each other, and the promise to reveal the fullness of the gospel was mentioned.
The variations in these and other accounts suggest that in relating his story to various individuals at various times, Joseph Smith [p. 49] emphasized different aspects of it and that his listeners were each impressed with different details. This, of course, is to be expected, for the same thing happens in retelling any story. The only way to keep it from changing is to write it only once and then insist that it be read exactly that way each time it is to be repeated. Such an effort would obviously be unrealistic. Joseph Smith told his story several times before he released it for publication. People who heard it may have embellished it a little with their own literary devices as they retold or recorded it.
In this connection four accounts are especially interesting, for each suggests that although two personages appeared in the vision, one preceded the other. The 1835 story is the earliest that makes this distinction. In 1843 Joseph Smith told the story to a non-Mormon editor, who later quoted him in an article in the New York Spectator. As quoted by the editor, Joseph said: “While thinking of this matter, I opened the New Testament promiscuously on these words, in James, `Ask of the Lord who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not.’ I just determined I’d ask Him. I immediately went out into the woods where my father had a clearing, and I kneeled down, and prayed, saying, `O Lord, what church shall I join?’ Directly I saw a light, and then a glorious personage in the light, and then another personage, and the first person said to the second, `Behold my Beloved Son, hear Him.’ I then addressed this second person, saying, `O Lord, what church shall I join?’ He replied, `Do not join any of them, they are all corrupt.’ The vision then vanished.”21
The third contemporary account to repeat the idea that one personage preceded the other is the diary of Alexander Neibaur. Writing on 24 May 1844, Neibaur said that Joseph Smith had told him that day of his early quest for religion. In Neibaur’s words Joseph Smith “went into the woods to pray, kneels himself down … saw a fire toward heaven come nearer and nearer; saw a personage in the fire; light complexion, blue eyes, a piece of white cloth drawn over his shoulders, his right arm bear [sic]; after a while another person came to the side of the first.”22 A fourth reference to this idea is in the diary of Charles L. Walker on the date of 2 February 1893. Walker wrote of hearing John Alger declare in “Fast meeting” that he had heard Joseph Smith relate the story of the vision, saying “that God touched his eyes with his [p. 50] finger and said, `Joseph this is my beloved Son, hear him.’ As soon as the Lord had touched his eyes with his finger he immediately saw the Saviour.”23 The latter, of course, is only reminiscence, but together with the earlier narratives it demonstrates at least that a few people had this concept of the vision as it gradually took its place among the fundamental teachings of the church.
Additional accounts by people close to the Mormon prophet would undoubtedly reveal similar variations and amplifications. Through it all, however, there seems to be no deviation from Joseph Smith’s apparent intent in telling the story in the first place: to demonstrate that he had had a visitation from deity and that he was told that the religions of his day were wrong. The account published in the Pearl of Great Price in 1851 has become the standard account and is accepted by Mormons as scripture.
In conclusion, this essay demonstrates the need for new approaches to Mormon history by sympathetic historians. Can we fully understand our heritage without understanding the gradual development of ideas and the use of those ideas in our history? An understanding of the story of Joseph Smith’s vision dawned only gradually upon the membership of the church during his lifetime and new and important uses were made of the story after his death. In what other respects has the Mormon mind been modified since the 1830s? What forces and events have led church leaders to place special emphasis on special ideas in given periods of time? What new ideas have become part of the Mormon tradition since the exodus from Nauvoo or even in the twentieth century; what old ideas have been submerged if not forgotten; and what ideas have remained constant through the years? As in the case of other institutions and movements, there is still room in Mormonism for fresh historical scholarship–not necessarily for the apologist, although he or she will always be necessary and will always make an important contribution, and certainly not for the debunker. What is needed is the sympathetic historian who can approach his or her tradition with scholarship as well as faith and who will make fresh appraisal of the developments of the Mormon mind.
2. It is probable that Turner had not seen Joseph Smith’s written [p. 51] account of the vision when he was preparing his book, for both were published the same year. Turner shows familiarity with the earlier publications of church history and would certainly have included the history published in the Times and Seasons if he had seen it. Orson Pratt’s account published in 1840 may also have escaped him as he prepared his manuscript, for Pratt’s work was published in England for circulation there.
4. See N. B. Lundall, comp., A Compilation Containing the Lectures on Faith (Salt Lake City, n.d.). It is interesting to observe in connection with the general question of how certain precise teachings of the church in the 1830s differed from those of today that in The Lectures on Faith the Father is defined as a “personage of glory and power,” the Son is defined as a “personage of tabernacle,” and the Holy Spirit is defined as the mind of the Father and the Son (see Lecture 5). As far as the vision is concerned, the only possible allusion to it is in Section I of the Doctrine and Covenants, which reads, “Wherefore I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jr. and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments; and also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world.” The same statement is in the 1833 Book of Commandments, but most would agree that it hardly constitutes a direct reference to the first vision.
10. The document was brought to my attention in June 1966. Since it is bound with the “Manuscript History,” it is unusual that someone had not found it earlier and recognized its significance. It seems apparent, however, that as in the case of Cheesman’s document, few if any people have been aware of it. The fact that the use of the “Manuscript History” was restricted and that any research done in it was done through a microfilm copy could help account for the fact that researchers generally had not discovered what was in the back of the book.
14. T. Edgar Lyon, Introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City: Latter-day Saints’ Department of Education, 1955), 109; James R. Clark, The Story of the Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1955), 186-221.
16. As transcribed in Cheesman, 129. This account records the first vision as having occurred when Smith was sixteen years old. In Smith’s 1838 account, he said it happened in the 15th year of his age. Orson Pratt and Orson Hyde both said that it happened when Joseph was “somewhere about fourteen or fifteen years old.” The Wentworth letter said “when about fourteen years of age.” Joseph’s brother, William Smith, wrote that the Smith family’s concern with the prevailing religions of the day came when Joseph was about seventeen. See William Smith, William Smith on Mormonism (Lamoni, IA: Printed at Herald Steam Book and Job Office, 1883). William, however, did not record the story of the first vision. He related the religious revival which he described to the discovery of the Book of Mormon. The only contemporary account to date the vision in a definite manner as occurring in the spring of 1820 is that written by Joseph Smith in 1838.
17. “Documentary History of the Church” (MS), in archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. From a separate section in the back of Book A-1, 120-21.