Why Did Joseph Smith Wait 12 Years? The First Vision

Chapter 01, Episode 02 | First Vision

Podcast Episode Summary

Joseph Smith said the First Vision happened in 1820, but his earliest surviving detailed written account dates to 1832. Why the twelve-year gap? This episode examines what records survived, what Joseph said about sharing his experience, why early Church publications emphasized other events, and the later controversy over the 1832 manuscript.

In April 1830, a small group of believers formally organized the Church of Christ in western New York. The Book of Mormon had just been published, and missionaries soon began proclaiming a restored gospel. Yet the detailed account Latter-day Saints now associate with the beginning of the Restoration was not the central story in the Church’s earliest printed message. ^[1]

Joseph Smith said he had seen a heavenly vision in 1820, when he was about fourteen. His earliest surviving written account of that event, however, dates to 1832. Thomas Faulk emphasizes the gap in Letter For My Wife and points to early publications that did not recount the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ. The underlying question is reasonable: if the vision was so important, why was it not immediately documented and widely proclaimed? ^[2]

The answer is not that the gap is imaginary. We do not have a surviving detailed written First Vision account from 1820. Nor do we have evidence that the story occupied the same public position in 1830 that it occupies in modern Latter-day Saint instruction. Those are legitimate historical facts. But they are not equivalent to proving Joseph invented the event in the 1830s. ^[3]

What Was Joseph Smith Recording in the 1820s?

An argument from the absence of a document depends partly on whether we should reasonably expect that document to exist. If Joseph kept a complete daily journal in 1820, the absence of a vision account would be one kind of evidence. If his surviving personal record keeping began much later, it means something different.

The Joseph Smith Papers shows that the first surviving journal he maintained begins November 27, 1832. His early documentary work concentrated on revelations, scripture, correspondence, and the practical demands of the emerging Church. He often relied on scribes, and his surviving handwritten letters reveal difficulties with spelling and written expression. ^[4]

In 1832, Joseph and Frederick G. Williams wrote portions of a six-page autobiographical history. It was an unfinished attempt to explain his own life and the rise of the Church. It contains the earliest surviving firsthand account of the vision, with a passage partly in Joseph’s handwriting. It was not a continuous personal journal he had maintained since childhood, and its production should not be assigned to the Greenville episode without documentation. ^[5]

Joseph’s limitations as a writer provide some context, but they shouldn’t be exaggerated. He could write and had growing experience managing documents. He also had access to other literate people. If he had considered a detailed written account a priority in 1820, he might have found some way to preserve it. The historical question is why he didn’t, not whether he was physically incapable of doing so.

When I revisited my own mission journal while writing about spiritual experiences, I discovered that several experiences I remembered were not recorded there. I had regular responsibilities and wrote many things down, but not every event I considered important years later. That doesn’t establish what Joseph did in 1820. It simply illustrates why the absence of an entry cannot automatically tell us whether an event happened.

Did Joseph Tell Anyone Before 1832?

In the 1832 history, Joseph says he found people who would not believe his heavenly vision. The later history gives a more specific account: Joseph says he told a Methodist preacher, who rejected the report and said visions and revelations did not occur in that day. In the familiar account, Joseph also recalls experiencing opposition after telling the story. ^[5] ^[6]

Those are Joseph’s later recollections about speaking to others. We do not have a surviving diary written by that preacher in 1820 confirming the conversation. It would be inaccurate either to present the minister’s reaction as independently verified or to claim there is no testimony that Joseph spoke of a vision before the Church was organized. The historical evidence is Joseph’s own retrospective statement.

Some newspapers in 1830 and 1831 referred generally to Joseph Smith’s claims of visions, angels, or revelations. These references show that his reputation as a visionary was already part of public discussion. They don’t necessarily identify the precise 1820 encounter with the Father and Son. The distinction is important, because a reference to Moroni or another revelation cannot automatically be counted as a contemporary First Vision account. ^[7]

The earliest surviving explicit written account remains the 1832 history. The contemporary documentary record before that is limited. A reader can consider that a weakness in the external corroboration of Joseph’s story without treating the absence of records as proof he never spoke of it.

Why Wasn’t It in the Earliest Church Publications?

Faulk lists several publications that do not contain the full First Vision account: the 1833 Book of Commandments, The Evening and the Morning Star, Oliver Cowdery’s historical letters in the Messenger and Advocate, and Parley P. Pratt’s 1837 A Voice of Warning. His point is that the Church’s founders could have printed the story but largely did not. ^[2]

These absences are real. They are relevant to how early members presented and understood the Restoration. Still, a list of publications becomes misleading if it suggests that each was written as a comprehensive autobiography of Joseph Smith and inexplicably skipped a required chapter.

The 1833 Book of Commandments

The Book of Commandments was an early collection of revelations, not a biography. It was not designed to narrate Joseph’s childhood religious experiences. Faulk’s 2017 PDF also claims that the 1833 book included the Lectures on Faith. That is a verifiable chronological error. The lectures were associated with the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, not the 1833 Book of Commandments. ^[2] ^[8]

The mistake is useful because it demonstrates why dates and the purposes of publications should be checked rather than accepted simply because a document has footnotes. A book designed to collect revelations cannot be treated as a missing volume of Joseph’s autobiography.

The Evening and the Morning Star

The Church’s early newspaper published revelations, doctrinal instruction, news, and information for members. Its lack of a detailed account of the 1820 vision shows that the story wasn’t a featured element of those issues. But the newspaper was not an exhaustive record of everything Joseph said or believed. ^[9]

Oliver Cowdery’s historical letters

Cowdery’s 1834–1835 historical letters in the Messenger and Advocate are more relevant because they were expressly concerned with the Church’s beginnings. They devote attention to Moroni and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, rather than setting out the full 1820 First Vision account. That is a significant observation and deserves to be conceded. ^[10]

But those letters are also evidence that different early participants emphasized different events when explaining the origin of the Church. Their omission establishes what Cowdery did not include in that series. It does not establish that Joseph never shared the earlier vision with anyone.

Parley P. Pratt’s A Voice of Warning

Pratt’s 1837 missionary book argues for biblical prophecy, the Book of Mormon, and the need for divine revelation. It does not contain the detailed First Vision narrative. Again, that tells us something about the priorities of early missionary literature. It does not tell us everything Joseph had said privately during the previous seventeen years. ^[11]

In the early years, the Book of Mormon, angelic ministry, and restoration of priesthood authority were prominent claims. The First Vision later became a particularly concise and central way of explaining the divine origin of the Restoration. The history of that change in emphasis is worth understanding; it needn’t be denied to defend Joseph’s sincerity.

When Did an Explicit Account Become Public?

The first surviving detailed account was written in 1832 but was not printed at the time. Joseph gave another account in conversation in November 1835, preserved in his journal. The familiar history was begun in 1838, and its surviving manuscript was copied in 1839–1841. ^[5] ^[12]

The first known printed account of the First Vision appeared in Orson Pratt’s missionary pamphlet in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1840. Pratt described two glorious personages, Joseph’s distress about salvation, and divine instructions concerning the churches. That appeared before the familiar history was printed in the Times and Seasons in 1842. ^[13]

In March 1842, Joseph published a short description in the same newspaper, commonly called the Wentworth Letter. The familiar history was also printed that year. The two printed accounts did not give identical levels of detail. ^[12] ^[14]

This chronology is important because arguments sometimes slide between three very different claims: that a story was not written, was not published, and was not known. A private journal entry can establish that someone told a story without proving that the general public knew it. A later publication date cannot establish that the story originated on that date.

What About the First Vision Manuscript Being Hidden?

The physical history of the 1832 document deserves its own explanation. It is not enough to say the account was always publicly available, because it wasn’t. It is also not accurate to conclude that the archival facts prove a deliberate campaign to conceal a damaging account.

The 1832 history was written on pages in a volume that later served as a letter book. At some point between roughly 1930 and 1965, the leaves were cut from the binding. The Church’s own historical materials acknowledge that Joseph Fielding Smith restricted access to some important documents for a period and that the pages were eventually reunited with the volume. ^[15]

Historians have suggested that archival reorganization may have prompted the removal, but the exact reason is not established by the cut pages themselves. The act should be examined honestly, including the restrictions placed on researchers, without pretending it reveals the intentions of every person who handled the document.

By the early 1960s, the manuscript was made available to researchers. In 1965, Paul Cheesman published a transcript in his master’s thesis. The 1835 account was published in 1966, and the Church’s Improvement Era discussed multiple First Vision accounts in 1970. The modern Joseph Smith Papers has since published the manuscripts, images, transcriptions, and historical context online. ^[15] ^[16]

The period of limited access is a legitimate historical concern. It should not be converted into evidence that Joseph fabricated a vision more than a century before those archival decisions were made. Those are separate questions.

Origins of the Accusation

Thomas Faulk did not discover the twelve-year gap or the absence of an early public First Vision account. Fawn Brodie advanced a prominent late-invention theory in No Man Knows My History in 1945, before the 1832 account became broadly available. Later historians responded to that theory after the early manuscripts were published in the 1960s. ^[17]

The criticism also appears in the CES Letter and in older critical treatments of the Restoration. Faulk’s chronology and collection of missing publications belong to that established debate, not a previously unknown discovery made simply by opening the Joseph Smith Papers. ^[2] ^[18]

Does the Twelve-Year Gap Prove Joseph Invented the Vision?

There is no detailed surviving 1820 account. The story wasn’t central to the Church’s earliest public literature, and some of the early documents that discuss the Church’s origins omit it. Those points are historically significant, particularly when evaluating what the first generation of members knew.

But the evidence also shows that Joseph recorded the experience in 1832, told it in 1835, and authorized versions that were publicly circulated during his lifetime. The surviving record does not establish that he invented the vision in 1838 or 1840. By those dates, earlier accounts already existed.

I believe the First Vision happened. The late documentation is something to understand, not something I need to deny. It places limits on what we can prove from contemporary records, but it does not establish the intention to deceive that critics sometimes assume.

For the actual differences in Joseph’s descriptions, see Did Joseph Smith Change His First Vision Story?. The separate question of one or two heavenly personages deserves its own close examination.

Why Did Joseph Smith Wait 12 Years to Record the First Vision?