Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Latter-day Saint
Travel and Religion
How many divine beings appeared in Joseph’s First Vision?

How many divine beings appeared in Joseph’s First Vision?

Last updated on: August 24, 2026 at 9:49 pm by Dan Peterson

0 Comments

How many divine beings appeared in Joseph’s First Vision? 2026-08-24T21:49:25-06:00 Dan Peterson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Brigham Young’s “Lion House” in Salt Lake City, Utah (Wikimedia Commons public domain photo). Brigham Young was sometimes called “The Lion of the Lord.”

The latest installment of the Interpreter Foundation’s Becoming Brigham series is now up: “Lives of Their Own? The Wives of Brigham Young — Becoming Brigham, Episode 31”

How did Brigham Young’s rejection of his father’s harsh discipline shape daily life and family rituals in the Lion House?

In what concrete ways did women such as Eliza R. Snow exercise leadership and autonomy under Brigham Young?

Why do the historians argue that judging Brigham Young solely by modern standards risks missing both the complexity of his character and the reasons so many people willingly followed him?

Drawing on his daughters’ recollections and the insights of historians Lisa Olson Tate and Brittany Chapman Nash, this episode explores Brigham Young as a father and the inner life of his large household. Clarissa and Susa Young remembered him as an affectionate, tender, and ideal parent whom they adored and never feared—in contrast to Brigham’s own childhood under a stern, disciplinarian father. Nightly family prayer in the Lion House created both closeness and a setting for meaningful discussion with gathered wives and children; some of those conversations, particularly with Eliza R. Snow, helped shape later organizations such as the Young Women. Brigham’s parenting philosophy favored kindness over the rod, teaching that loving actions bind children far more effectively than force, and he expected the same restraint from the mothers in his household. The episode also examines the practical balance between traditional gender expectations and real autonomy for women. Under Brigham Latter-day Saint women exercised significant leadership. The hosts and historians close by urging a more nuanced view of historical figures, noting that Brigham’s deepest aim was for people to flourish through the gospel and the building of Zion, and that Brigham is best understood through original sources that reveal his counsel and kindness.

And please don’t forget that you can actually subscribe to Becoming Brigham — painlessly and at no charge — by simply going to the project’s official website and clicking there on the button marked “Subscribe on YouTube.”

Joseph Smith’s First Vision (A stained glass window from roughly 1913) Wikimedia Commons public domain image

Joseph Smith left behind him four primary, firsthand accounts of his First Vision — which is to say that they were written or dictated by the Prophet himself. They are:

The 1832 Account: The earliest known account, partially written in Joseph Smith’s own handwriting. It focuses heavily on his early personal concerns, his search for forgiveness of sins, and mentions the appearance of “the Lord.”
The 1835 Account: Recounted to a visitor named Robert Matthews (or Joshua) and recorded in his journal by his scribe Warren Parrish. It emphasizes the heavy opposition or dark presence he felt while praying, the appearance of one divine personage followed by another, and the presence of angels.
The 1838 Account: The official and most detailed version, dictated to scribes and later canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, it clearly describes two distinct personages (God the Father and Jesus Christ).
The 1842 Account: Written in response to an inquiry from Chicago newspaper editor John Wentworth (part of the “Wentworth Letter”) and intended for a non-member audience, it describes “two glorious personages” whose appearance matched each other.

For many years, critics of the Restoration have seized upon the 1832 account, with its reference only to “the Lord,” as contradicting the three subsequent accounts. Some have said that, in the 1832 report, Joseph actually denies seeing the Father. But he doesn’t. And it would only contradict the later accounts with regard to the number of divine beings if he had denied seeing the Father or seeing a second divine being in the 1832 narrative. But he doesn’t.

One of my more diligent critics over at the Peterson Obsession Board recently dredged up this comment of mine from somewhere in which, clearly, I was trying to make the point that mentioning one divine being who appeared to Joseph in the grove doesn’t, as such, rule out the appearance of a second divine being:

“For example, if the 1832 account mentions Jesus only, that doesn’t mean — contrary to certain critics — that the Father didn’t appear. And if an account describes a “vision of angels,” that’s entirely compatible with a vision of the Father and the Son also. (In fact, the Lord himself is sometimes referred to, biblically, as an angel.) As a parallel, if I say that I met Frank at the party, I’m not thereby denying that I also met John. And, for that matter, Jane, Bob, Ellen and Stan, as well.”

I’m afraid that I need to resort to actual logic here. It’s logically valid to say that P & Q → P. To give a trio of illustrative examples:

“Hawaii and Alaska are both beautiful American states” logically entails the proposition that “Alaska is a beautiful American state.”
“Frankie and Johnny were at the party” logically implies that “Frankie was at the party.”
“Squirrels and caribou are both mammals,” if true, requires that “Squirrels are mammals.”

There is, thus, nothing illogical or contradictory about saying in one place that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith in the grove and, in another place, that the Son appeared to Joseph in the grove.

However, it isn’t logically valid, in and of itself, to assert that P → ¬Q. Once again, a threesome of illustrative examples:

“Hawaii is a beautiful American state” doesn’t imply or entail that “Alaska isn’t a beautiful American state.”
“Frankie was at the party” doesn’t logically lead to the conclusion that “Johnny wasn’t at the party.”
“Squirrels are mammals” doesn’t require the conclusion that “Caribou are not mammals.”

Thus, for one account of Joseph Smith’s First Vision to say that the Son appeared to him does not imply or entail the conclusion that the Father didn’t appear to him.

“Well folks,” comments “Everybody’s WC” in a stunningly novel variation on his usual refrain of “Folks, you simply can’t make this stuff up!,” “you simply cannot script this level of absurdity.” But it’s obviously not absurd. Rather, it’s a simple, small, and quite uncontroversial logical point. Nothing more. Nothing less. Logically speaking — that is, according to the universally recognized rules of logic — the 1832 account simply doesn’t “contradict” the 1835, 1838, and 1842 accounts.

One of the savants at the Peterson Obsession Board (hereafter, the POB) suggests that I’m saying that Joseph regarded the appearance of the Father as an insignificant detail that didn’t merit mention in his narrative. But that would obviously be ridiculous. However, since one of the governing assumptions at the POB is that I’m an irrational buffoon, it’s supposedly just the kind of thing that I would say. Unfortunately, though, I didn’t say it.

I said nothing about why the 1832 account mentions only “the Lord.” I don’t know why, although I can think of several speculative but possible explanations.

Another claims that I’m attempting to justify “dishonesty” on Joseph’s part. But, of course, I didn’t say that, either. And I don’t believe that he was dishonest.

“The First Vision” (Minerva Teichert, 1934) Brigham Young University Museum of Art

But let’s move on. In addition to Joseph Smith’s own retellings, there are five secondary accounts of the First Vision that were committed to writing by contemporaries during his lifetime:

1840: Published in a pamphlet in Scotland by Orson Pratt, marking the earliest printed version. Elder Pratt relates that Joseph saw two distinct heavenly beings who looked exactly alike.
1842: Published in Germany in a pamphlet entitled Ein Ruf aus der Wüste (“A Cry Out of the Wilderness”) by Orson Hyde. In this version, two glorious heavenly personages appeared to Joseph Smith who resembled each other exactly in their features and stature.
1843: Recorded in the journal of Levi Richards on 11 June 1843 after hearing Joseph Smith preach. Richards’s account says that “the Lord” spoke to Joseph to tell him that the everlasting covenant was broken. It doesn’t detail the visual appearance of “the Lord,” nor does it describe two distinct divine personages.
1843: Written up by David Nye White, an editor of the Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette, after interviewing Joseph Smith in August 1843. According to White, Joseph Smith described seeing one personage appear, followed shortly by a second.
1844: Recounted in the journal of Alexander Neibaur after a personal conversation with Joseph. According to Neibaur, two personages appeared. Neibaur recorded that Joseph saw a fire descending and a first personage appear, followed shortly by a second personage.

Another commentator at the POB, reusing an argument that was, as I recall, first advanced by the late Fawn Brodie, declares that “Joseph’s power base was dwindling and he needed something to reinforce his specialness. So he came up with a vision story which he increasingly embellished over time, with each retelling.” (Reacting, yet another POB participant sees this as unmistakable evidence that Joseph was a con-artist.) But it’s difficult to see a neat, linear, evolutionary timeline with regard to the numbers of divine beings in the accounts of the First Vision: In 1832 and in a second-hand 1843 narrative, only one divine being is mentioned. However, two divine beings are mentioned in 1835, 1838, 1840, 1842, again in 1842, as well as in 1843 and 1844.

Travel and Religion

History and Religion

Previous Post

August 23, 2026

Does mind derive from mindless matter?

Next Post

August 25, 2026 Against Burgeoning Anti-Semitism

What book contains the "Suffering Servant" prophecy?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Zechariah Lamentations Isaiah Jeremiah