Appearance
Contradictions
The claim:
"This is in direct contradiction to his 1832 first vision account... Depending upon the account, a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels or the Father and the Son appear to him — are all over the place."[1]
The CES Letter lists six alleged contradictions across Joseph Smith's First Vision accounts: his age, his motive for praying, who appeared, whether a revival happened in 1820, when his family joined the Presbyterians, and whether his Godhead theology evolved over time. It treats each difference as proof of fabrication.
Are these actually contradictions — or differences in emphasis?
A contradiction requires one account to deny what another affirms. Saying less is not the same as saying something different. The distinction matters for every claim below.
For the big-picture case — why multiple accounts exist, how memory works, and why variation strengthens rather than weakens the evidence — see Multiple Accounts. This article takes the alleged contradictions one at a time.
The age question: 14 or 15?
The 1832 account says "in the 16th year of my age" — making Joseph 15. Every other account says 14. The CES Letter treats this as a factual conflict.
Here is what the CES Letter doesn't mention: the phrase "in the 16th year of my age" was not written by Joseph Smith.
It was inserted above the line by scribe Frederick G. Williams. Dean C. Jessee's manuscript analysis confirmed the handwriting change. Jessee later admitted that in 1969 he "had not spent enough time with the manuscript...to see all that was there — for example, the handwriting changes between Frederick G. Williams and Joseph Smith."[2]
| Account | Age given | Written by |
|---|---|---|
| 1832 | "16th year of my age" | Frederick G. Williams (inserted above the line) |
| 1835 | About 14 | Warren Parrish (scribe), from Joseph's dictation |
| 1838 | 14 (spring 1820) | Multiple scribes, from Joseph's dictation |
| 1842 | "About fourteen years of age" | Joseph Smith / scribes |
Every account where Joseph's own words are clearly recorded says 14. The single outlier is a scribal insertion by someone else's hand.[2:1]
Steven Harper notes that Joseph's memory of his exact age "was vague" and "usually remembered his age at the time as an afterthought" — but the afterthoughts consistently land on 14.[3]
Bottom line: The age discrepancy comes from a scribe's handwriting, not Joseph's. Remove the Williams insertion and all four accounts agree.
One being or two?
The CES Letter's centerpiece: the 1832 account mentions only "the Lord," while the 1838 account describes "two Personages." The implication is that Joseph started with one divine visitor and inflated the story over time.
The 1832 text:
"The Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord."[4]
Read that again. "The Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord." One being acts. Another is seen. The phrasing is ambiguous at minimum — and arguably implies two distinct figures.[5]
But grant the ambiguity. Does the 1832 account deny two beings? No. It doesn't specify. An abbreviated private journal entry focused on the message rather than the visual details.
The embellishment thesis has a timeline problem.
| Account | Beings described |
|---|---|
| 1832 | "The Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord" — ambiguous |
| 1835 | "One personage" then "another personage"; also "many angels" |
| 1838 | "Two Personages," one introducing the other as "My Beloved Son" |
| 1842 | "Two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other" |
The 1835 account — three years before the "official" 1838 version — already describes two personages plus "many angels."[6] If the story were growing by embellishment, you'd expect the angels to appear later, not earlier. The 1838 account is actually more restrained than the 1835 account. A fabricated narrative adds detail over time. This one drops it.
Jim Bennett's analogy is useful: if you text a friend "I talked to Mom" and later mention Dad was there too, you haven't changed your story. You mentioned the person most relevant to what you were saying.[7]
Three of four firsthand accounts explicitly describe two personages. The fourth doesn't say "only one appeared." Omission is not denial.
Bottom line: The 1832 account is ambiguous, not contradictory. Three of four accounts explicitly describe two beings. The 1835 account — written before the "official" version — is actually more detailed than 1838, which is the opposite of embellishment.
Forgiveness or which church to join?
This is the hardest one. The CES Letter is not wrong to flag the tension — but it overstates what that tension means.
The 1832 account says Joseph concluded "by searching the scriptures" that the churches had apostatized, and his primary purpose was to seek forgiveness. The 1838 account says "my object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right" and — the key phrase — "for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong."[1:1]
On the surface, those look like opposite starting points. Joseph already knew all were wrong? Or it had never entered his heart?
Worth Acknowledging
The motive question is the strongest single textual challenge in the First Vision accounts. The phrase "it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong" genuinely stands in tension with the 1832 account's claim that Joseph already concluded the churches had apostatized. This one can't be hand-waved.
Three factors frame this differently than the CES Letter presents it.
The phrase "at this time" matters. The 1838 account reads: "for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong." "At this time" refers to the beginning of his period of investigation — before he read James 1:5, before the question crystallized. The 1832 account describes where he ended up after studying. The 1838 account describes where he started.[8]
Head knowledge vs. heart conviction. The 1832 account says Joseph found "by searching the scriptures" that no church was built on Christ's gospel. The 1838 account says it had never entered his heart that all were wrong. Jim Bennett and Sarah Allen both note the distinction: Joseph may have suspected all were wrong from study but didn't have it confirmed spiritually ("entered into my heart") until the vision itself.[7:1][9]
Audience shaped emphasis. The 1832 account was a private journal entry — the first time Joseph ever attempted to write his history. He wrote about what mattered most personally: his sins, his forgiveness, his encounter with Christ. The 1838 account was an official history for publication, framing the vision as the founding event of a new dispensation.[10]
Richard Bushman addressed this directly: "In all accounts of his early religious experiences, Joseph mentions the search for the true church and a desire for forgiveness. In some accounts he emphasizes one, in some the other."[11]
The D&C 9:8 pattern applies: "You must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right." First investigate. Then ask. The 1832 account describes the investigation. The 1838 account describes the asking.[12]
Bottom line: Seeking forgiveness and seeking to know which church is right aren't competing motives — they're complementary ones. The 1832 account describes the personal dimension; the 1838 account describes the institutional one. The tension is real but resolvable. A contradiction requires one account to deny what the other affirms — and neither does.
The 1820 revival: did it happen?
The CES Letter: "Contrary to Joseph's account, the historical record shows that there was no revival in Palmyra, New York in 1820."[1:2]
This argument was pioneered by Wesley Walters in 1967. It has two problems, both identified by Steven Harper: the negative proof fallacy (absence of evidence doesn't prove absence) and irrelevant proof (searching in the wrong place).[5:1]
Joseph never said "there was a revival in Palmyra village." His 1838 account describes "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion" in "the whole district of country."[8:1] A Methodist "district" in 1820 was a regional unit encompassing many towns — not a single village.
The records tell the rest:
| Date | Event | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1816--1817 | Presbyterian revival | Nearly doubled Palmyra Presbyterian membership[13] |
| June 1818 | Methodist camp meeting, Palmyra outskirts | ~2,000 attendees (double the town's population); Aurora Seager journal: "about twenty were baptized; forty united with the Church"[14] |
| July 1819 | Methodist conference, Phelps/Vienna (12 mi from Smith farm) | ~100 preachers from western NY, northern PA, southern Canada[15] |
| 1819--1820 | Regional revivals | Seven towns within 25 miles of the Smith farm; 2,256 Methodists added in western NY[15:1] |
| June 28, 1820 | Methodist camp meeting, Palmyra vicinity | Palmyra Register reported camp meeting "held in this vicinity," ~1,000 attendees[16] |
Genesee District Methodist membership jumped from 4,881 (1818) to 6,068 (1819) — a 24% increase, "the largest annual increase ever reported for the region to that time."[17]
Two contemporary witnesses confirm the atmosphere. Orsamus Turner, a Palmyra printer's apprentice, recalled Joseph catching "a spark of Methodism in the camp meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road."[18] Sarepta Marsh Baker described the meetings as "a religious cyclone which swept over the whole region round about."[19]
Bushman listed 19 documented revival locations in 1819--1820 versus 12 in 1824 — undermining Walters's argument that only the 1824 revival matched Joseph's account.[17:1]
Bottom line: The 1820 revival question has been resolved. Camp meetings, regional conferences, denominational growth statistics, and contemporary witnesses all confirm "unusual excitement on the subject of religion" in the Palmyra region during 1818--1820 — exactly when and where Joseph said it happened.
Presbyterian membership timing
The CES Letter notes that William Smith and Lucy Mack Smith both place the family's Presbyterian affiliation after Alvin's death in November 1823 — three years after Joseph's 1838 account says it happened.[1:3]
This is a real chronological question. The family's formal membership records at the Western Presbyterian Church in Palmyra date to 1823--1824.
But the 1838 account doesn't say the family joined the Presbyterians in 1820. It says Joseph's mother and some siblings "were proselyted to the Presbyterian faith" during the period of religious excitement — language that describes attraction and attendance, not formal membership.[8:2] In early 19th-century frontier religion, attending services, expressing interest, and formally joining a congregation were separate stages that could be separated by years.
Joseph's 1832 account says he began investigating churches "from the age of twelve years to fifteen" — a three-year window from late 1817 to late 1820.[4:1] The family could have started attending Presbyterian services during the 1818--1820 revival period and formalized their membership only after Alvin's death prompted deeper commitment.
The CES Letter reads "proselyted to the Presbyterian faith" as "joined the Presbyterian church on the membership rolls." The text supports a broader reading — and the documented revival activity in 1818--1820 fits the timeline of initial religious interest.
Bottom line: The family's formal Presbyterian membership dates to 1823--1824. But "proselyted to the Presbyterian faith" describes religious interest, not necessarily formal enrollment — and the documented 1818--1820 revivals explain when that interest began.
The "theological evolution" thesis
Dan Vogel presents the strongest version of the argument: Joseph's Godhead theology evolved from modalism (one God, as in early Book of Mormon language) to separatism (distinct Father and Son), and the First Vision accounts were adjusted to match.[20]
The CES Letter puts it bluntly: "Why did Joseph hold a Trinitarian view of the Godhead, as shown previously with the Book of Mormon, if he clearly saw that the Father and Son were separate embodied beings?"[21]
The thesis has a timeline problem. The 1835 account describes two physical personages — while Joseph was simultaneously teaching the Lectures on Faith, which describe God as "a personage of spirit." If the narrative tracked theology, the 1835 account should match the Lectures. It doesn't. It matches the experience.[6:1]
| Year | What Joseph taught | What the First Vision account says |
|---|---|---|
| 1832 | Early theology, developing | "I saw the Lord" — singular phrasing |
| 1835 | Lectures on Faith: God is "a personage of spirit" | Two physical personages + "many angels" |
| 1838 | Mature Nauvoo-era theology emerging | "Two Personages" — Father and Son |
If the narrative were driven by evolving theology, the 1835 account would reflect the Lectures on Faith. Instead, it contradicts them. A story shaped by theology would track the theology. This one doesn't.
The Book of Mormon's God-language is also more complex than the CES Letter suggests. Passages like "God himself shall come down" (Mosiah 15:1) are spoken by prophets centuries before Christ — their vocabulary reflects their vantage point, just as Old Testament prophets used language that blurred distinctions between Yahweh and his Angel. Meanwhile, 3 Nephi 11 clearly depicts the Father and Son as distinct beings who act and speak separately — the Father's voice introduces the Son, who then descends and ministers independently.[10:1]
The Book of Mormon contains both "social" and "monarchian" God-language — the same complexity found in the Bible. That's not evidence of theological evolution. It's evidence of theological depth.
Bottom line: The theological evolution thesis fails on its own timeline. The 1835 account describes two physical personages while Joseph was teaching that God is "a personage of spirit." The narrative tracks the experience, not the theology.
A pattern no fabricator would produce
Read the accounts as a whole and a different picture emerges — one that no fabricator would produce.
A fabricator picks one story. Joseph told four different versions. Each foregrounds what mattered most to the audience. The 1832 journal entry opens with anguish over sin. The 1838 official history opens with denominational confusion. The 1842 Wentworth Letter gives a concise public summary. A liar rehearses a single script. A witness emphasizes what's relevant.
The 1835 account undermines both embellishment and suppression. If embellishing: why add "many angels" in 1835 and then drop them in 1838? If suppressing earlier accounts: why tell the story to a stranger (Robert Matthews) in 1835?[6:2]
A hostile witness confirms the claim before it was written down. The Reflector, a Palmyra newspaper, mocked Joseph in February 1831 for claiming to have "seen God frequently and personally."[22] That's a year before his first written account. Joseph was talking about seeing God before he ever put it on paper.
Neibaur's 1844 account includes a detail no theologian would invent. Alexander Neibaur recorded that one personage had "blue eyes."[23] That's not a doctrinal addition. It's the kind of detail someone remembers because they actually saw it.
D&C 20:5 (1830) predates the first written account. It references remission of sins during a heavenly experience — showing the forgiveness element was already part of the narrative two years before Joseph wrote it down in 1832.[24]
| Evidence | What it means |
|---|---|
| Four firsthand accounts with natural variation | Matches memory science predictions for genuine experience[3:1] |
| 1835 account more detailed than 1838 | Opposite of embellishment pattern |
| 1831 Reflector newspaper | Hostile witness confirms claim before first written account |
| Neibaur's "blue eyes" detail (1844) | Sensory detail, not theological addition |
| D&C 20:5 (1830) | Forgiveness element documented before 1832 account |
Bottom line: The CES Letter labels natural variations in emphasis as "direct contradictions." The age discrepancy comes from a scribe's handwriting. Three of four accounts explicitly describe two beings. The motives are complementary. The 1820 revival is confirmed by camp meeting records and contemporary witnesses. The theological evolution thesis fails on its own timeline. These are differences in emphasis — exactly what historians expect from genuine, repeated accounts of a real experience.
Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "First Vision," pp. 32--35. The CES Letter identifies contradictions in age, number of beings, motive for praying, revival dating, Presbyterian membership timing, and Godhead theology. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Dean C. Jessee, "The Earliest Documented Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision," in Exploring the First Vision, ed. Samuel Alonzo Dodge and Steven C. Harper (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2012). Jessee's manuscript analysis confirmed that "the insertion was written by Frederick G. Williams." https://rsc.byu.edu/exploring-first-vision/earliest-documented-accounts-joseph-smiths-first-vision ↩︎ ↩︎
Steven C. Harper, First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019). Harper applies cognitive memory science to the First Vision accounts, showing the variation pattern matches what researchers document in genuine recollections of significant events. ↩︎ ↩︎
Joseph Smith, History, circa Summer 1832, pp. 1--3, Joseph Smith Papers. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1 ↩︎ ↩︎
Steven C. Harper, "Evaluating Three Arguments Against Joseph Smith's First Vision," in Exploring the First Vision, ed. Dodge and Harper (2012). https://rsc.byu.edu/exploring-first-vision/evaluating-three-arguments-against-joseph-smiths-first-vision ↩︎ ↩︎
Joseph Smith, Journal, 9--11 November 1835, pp. 23--24, Joseph Smith Papers. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-1835-1836/24. The 1835 account describes "a pillar of fire," then "one personage" followed by "another personage," and "many angels." ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Jim Bennett, A CES Letter Reply: Faithful Answers for Those Who Doubt (2018), chapter 4, "First Vision Concerns & Questions." https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/first-vision-concerns-questions ↩︎ ↩︎
Joseph Smith, History, 1838--1856, vol. A-1, pp. 2--3, Joseph Smith Papers. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834/1. Later canonized in Joseph Smith--History 1:1--26, Pearl of Great Price. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Sarah Allen, "The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 9," FAIR Blog (2021). Allen notes the distinction between intellectual awareness and spiritual conviction in the motive language. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/17/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-9 ↩︎
"First Vision Accounts," Gospel Topics Essays, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng ↩︎ ↩︎
Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 39. ↩︎
"First Vision," Debunking the CES Letter. https://debunking-cesletter.com/first-vision/. Applies the D&C 9:8 "study it out in your mind, then ask" pattern to the complementary motives. ↩︎
"Religious Excitement near Palmyra, New York, 1816--1820," Pearl of Great Price Central. https://pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/religious-excitement-near-palmyra-new-york-1816-1820/ ↩︎
Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Joseph Smith's Accuracy on the First Vision Setting: The Pivotal 1818 Palmyra Camp Meeting," in Exploring the First Vision, ed. Dodge and Harper (2012). Cites Aurora Seager's journal: "On the 19th [Friday] I attended a camp-meeting at Palmyra...about twenty were baptized; forty united with the Church." https://rsc.byu.edu/exploring-first-vision/joseph-smiths-accuracy-first-vision-setting-pivotal-1818-palmyra-camp-meeting ↩︎
Milton V. Backman Jr., "Joseph Smith's Recital of the First Vision," BYU Studies 9, no. 3 (1969): 373--392. See also Backman, Joseph Smith's First Vision, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980). ↩︎ ↩︎
Palmyra Register, June 28, 1820. The newspaper reported a Methodist camp meeting "held in this vicinity," with approximately 1,000 attendees. ↩︎
Richard L. Bushman, "The First Vision Story Revived," in Exploring the First Vision, ed. Dodge and Harper (2012). Bushman lists 19 documented revival locations in 1819--1820 versus 12 in 1824. https://rsc.byu.edu/exploring-first-vision/first-vision-story-revived ↩︎ ↩︎
Orsamus Turner, History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase (Rochester, NY: William Alling, 1851), 214. ↩︎
Sarepta Marsh Baker, reminiscence (c. 1870s), cited in Anderson, "Joseph Smith's Accuracy on the First Vision Setting" (2012). ↩︎
Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2004). Vogel argues the First Vision accounts were shaped by evolving Godhead theology — a thesis undermined by the 1835 account's failure to match the Lectures on Faith. ↩︎
Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "First Vision," p. 35. ↩︎
"Gold Bible, No. 6," The Reflector (Palmyra, NY), February 14, 1831. The article mocked Joseph Smith for claiming to have "seen God frequently and personally" — a year before his first written account. ↩︎
Alexander Neibaur, journal entry, May 24, 1844, Joseph Smith Papers. The last known account recorded during Joseph's lifetime includes the physical detail that one personage had "blue eyes." ↩︎
Doctrine and Covenants 20:5 (April 1830): "After it was truly manifested unto this first elder that he had received a remission of his sins..." This references the First Vision's forgiveness element two years before the 1832 written account. ↩︎