Different Versions of Joseph Smith's First Vision

[clbent04]

The account of Joseph Smith's First Vision which occurred in the Spring of 1820 was recorded multiple times over the prophet's life.  Each time he retold the event, details seemed to change as to whether he saw one of two heavenly beings, how old he was when it happened, and what was the central theme of his experience praying. Was the main intent and result of his prayer to receive forgiveness of his sins or an answer on which church to join?

I don't get caught up in the fact he says he was 14 years old in one account whereas he says he was 16 in another.  Joseph did not even record his experience until he was 27 years old. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to recall at what specific age I did a lot of things in my adolescence.  

As for the variations in theme, it's interesting the second account in 1835 only mentions how Joseph received forgiveness from the Lord.  Nothing is mentioned as to Joseph asking or receiving an answer on which church to join. Does this bother me? Actually, no. It doesn't. I understand Joseph would find the need to focus on different parts of the experience to suit the needs of his audience at the time as well as his purpose in retelling what happened.

Also, Joseph's First Vision is more credible to me considering the fact his first account includes him receiving forgiveness for his sins AND receiving an answer on which church to join.  His first account is the most important account to state his intent all along was to know which church was true. He wasn't just a boy having a positive experience upon receiving forgiveness for his sins.

However, I see how suspicions are raised when his first account doesn't explicitly state he saw two heavenly beings.  Most readers would be led to believe he only saw one.  I don't understand how his first account did not clearly state he saw two heavenly beings. Some say he was limited in his writing skills, hence the ambiguity, but I read the first account as it was written by someone capable of describing events accurately. He was an intelligent young man.

I like how the church is very upfront with these different accounts.  It doesn't try to hide the variations of Joseph's First Vision from the public.  It's even posted on the church's website.  

The church states it's possible Joseph intended his first account to allude to two different "Lords" as Joseph mentions "the Lord" three times. I hold that at best as "a possibility."

Even though I'm confused as to why Joseph's first account does not clearly state two heavenly beings were present, I take a lot of stock in the fact his first account declares his intent all along was to know which church is true.

https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

1832 Account (written by Joseph Smith)

I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and 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 come 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 crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life <behold> the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not <my> commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to thir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which <hath> been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is?] written of me in the cloud <clothed> in the glory of my Father

 

1835 Account (spoken by Joseph Smith and recorded by his scribe Warren Parrish)

I called upon the Lord for the first time, in the place above stated or in other words I made a fruitless attempt to pray, my toung seemed to be swolen in my mouth, so that I could not utter, I heard a noise behind me like some person walking towards me, <I> strove again to pray, but could not, the noise of walking seemed to draw nearer, I sprung up on my feet, and looked around, but saw no person or thing that was calculated to produce the noise of walking, I kneeled again my mouth was opened and my toung liberated, and I called on the Lord in mighty prayer, a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon <me>, and filled me with joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst, of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testifyed unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God; <and I saw many angels in this vision> I was about 14. years old when I received this first communication

 

1838 Account (dictated by Joseph Smith and published by Times and Seasons)

After I had retired into the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God, I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was <siezed> upon by some power which entirely overcame me and <had> such astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. But exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had siezed upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction, not to an imaginary ruin but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world who had such a marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being. Just at this moment of great alarm I saw a pillar <of> light exactly over my head above the brightness of the sun, which descended gracefully gradually untill it fell upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two personages (whose brightness and glory defy all description) standing above me in the air. One of <them> spake unto me calling me by name and said (pointing to the other) “This is my beloved Son, Hear him.”

My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner therefore did I get possession of myself so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right, (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the Personage who addressed me said that all their Creeds were an abomination in his sight, that those professors were all corrupt, that “they draw near to me to with their lips but their hearts are far from me, They teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of Godliness but they deny the power thereof.” He again forbade me to join with any of them and many other thing did he say unto me which I cannot write at this time.

 

1842 Account (published by Times and Seasons as instructed by Joseph Smith)

I retired to a secret place in a grove and began to call upon the Lord, while fervently engaged in supplication my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded, and I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision and saw two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features, and likeness, surrounded with a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noon-day. They told me that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom. And I was expressly commanded to “go not after them,” at the same time receiving a promise that the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto me.

Edited August 19, 2017 by clbent04

[Just_A_Guy]

I make a hobby of reading about the Titanic disaster; and several survivors left multiple and partially-contradictory accounts throughput their remaining lifespan.  I think it's a relatively normal thing for the human mind to do--to re-interpret past experiences in light of more recent events, and come up with a paradigm that everything fits into.  As an attorney, it's not uncommon for witnesses to contradict themselves on minor points; especially when the witness has been through a very traumatic experience.  (Trauma does all kinds of really funky stuff with the brain and the way it processes memory.)

For Joseph Smith and much of the early church, the message of the restoration was that the heavens were opened; that man could approach God on an individual basis and experience the "visions and blessings of old" together with the spiritual gifts described in the New Testament.  I think that troubles with neighbors in Kirtland and Missouri from 1832-1839, often led or green-lit by clerics of other faiths, made Joseph ponder much more deeply on--and accept more fully--the Lord's statement that Joseph had downplayed in earlier accounts: That "none doeth good, no, not one".

Edited August 19, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[clbent04]

31 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think it's a relatively normal thing for the human mind to do--to re-interpret past experiences in light of more recent events, and come up with a paradigm that everything fits into.

I could buy that. Especially considering he was 15 years old when he had the First Vision.  The first time he recorded it was when he was 27, the second time, 30, the third, 33, and the fourth, 37.  A lot of time for reflection and life experience in between those recordings.  And maybe Joseph was so overwhelmed by how amazing his vision was and how much he experienced, that he only felt compelled to write down what he thought to be the most pertinent details. Otherwise he might of felt bogged down at the thought of trying to describe his experience perfectly on paper

Edited August 19, 2017 by clbent04

[Colirio]

Elder Richard J Maynes from the Presidency of the Seventy gave an interesting talk last year that spoke about how the differing accounts help to paint a better picture of what actually happened.  

 

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2016/01/the-truth-restored?lang=eng

[Fether]

@clbent04

im at glacier national park with my wife. We try to make it a habit to talk with people on the trail. We often tell people about our experience on one of the trails where we saw grizzlys and big horn sheep. The number of big horn sheep we saw changes from 15-25 (eventually settled on 20).  And bears changes from "a grizzly"-"a grizzly and a cub" - "grizzlys". 

[clbent04]

1 hour ago, Colirio said:

Elder Richard J Maynes from the Presidency of the Seventy gave an interesting talk last year that spoke about how the differing accounts help to paint a better picture of what actually happened.  

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2016/01/the-truth-restored?lang=eng

I've seen this. The church's website says the exact same thing in the hyperlink provided in the OP

Edited August 19, 2017 by clbent04

[clbent04]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

@clbent04

im at glacier national park with my wife. We try to make it a habit to talk with people on the trail. We often tell people about our experience on one of the trails where we saw grizzlys and big horn sheep. The number of big horn sheep we saw changes from 15-25 (eventually settled on 20).  And bears changes from "a grizzly"-"a grizzly and a cub" - "grizzlys". 

But these details you omitted or changed are immaterial to the story. They don't matter. Whether it was 15 or 25 big horn sheep, does the story teller and his audience really care? No. I understand you saw a lot of big horn sheep either way. 

Now, does it make a difference if Jospeh saw one or two "Lords"? Yes. It's not an immaterial fact to omit. A young man has the most powerful experience of his life when he receives a vision where two heavenly beings appear, one introduces the other, and both personally address Joseph.

I don't understand how you would have an experience like that and not clearly state seeing two "Lords". It's important to the story, important to the concept of the Godhead (how it's identified and how it functions), and it's especially important to describe in your personal written account of what happened. Joseph wasn't casually sharing a good hiking story with a friend, he was writing down the most profound experience of his life.

Edited August 19, 2017 by clbent04

[Fether]

40 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

But these details you omitted or changed are immaterial to the story. They don't matter. Whether it was 15 or 25 big horn sheep, does the story teller and his audience really care? No. I understand you saw a lot of big horn sheep either way. 

Now, does it make a difference if Jospeh saw one or two "Lords"? Yes. It's not an immaterial fact to omit. A young man has the most powerful experience of his life when he receives a vision where two heavenly beings appear, one introduces the other, and both personally address Joseph.

I don't understand how you would have an experience like that and not clearly state seeing two "Lords". It's important to the story, important to the concept of the Godhead (how it's identified and how it functions), and it's especially important to describe in your personal written account of what happened. Joseph wasn't casually sharing a good hiking story with a friend, he was writing down the most profound experience of his life.

No you are right. If I'm honest, there is still a little hesitation on my part in the different accounts. There are a few places in church history and doctrinal explanationbthat I'm still unsure about. This is one of them. 

[Guest]

Here is a question for you.  What if Joseph was describing two different events in his life, one in which he saw just the Father and one in which he saw the Father and son?

I am just throwing this out.  I know we are all familiar with the account in the Pearl of Great Price where he saw both.  But was this the only one?  Especially for a man as important and spiritual as Joseph?  Or did he maybe see God on several occasions as a teenager?  Maybe once when he had just turned 14 and once when he was around 15 (his "sixteenth year")?

I would not be surprised if Joseph did not want to talk much about some of his spiritual experiences.  I am sure he had some he said nothing about.  I would probably not tell anyone if I had a very sacred experience.  Maybe what looks like two inconsistent accounts is really Joseph describing two different experiences he had as a young teenager, and he never elaborated on this publicly in his life time.

 

Edited August 19, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Snigmorder]

I'll use Daniel Peterson as an example. He tells a story in which during his mission he encountered a particularly  confrontational man who could read the Greek New Testament. I've heard Dan Peterson retell the story on different occasions and in those different occasions there are different details which are not of the others. Can't recall anything else but that was my observation. 

I'll use myself as another example.   There was an incident in the sixth grade where in I had a jagged piece of concrete thrown at me and it would have hit me in the temple if I hadn't been pushed back. Now, this was about 11 years ago and it was a very simple incident with a single action, I was pushed. However I can't remember if it was my friend Jeremy or an invisible force. Because I've told the story both ways, and as I was telling it with an invisible force, I recalled the pusher might have been my friend Jeremy. But I do remember jagged concrete was thrown at me, and I was pushed.

 

The following two accounts are the same.

"a piller of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me" -1832

"a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon <me>, and filled me with joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst, of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed" -1835

 

The following accounts are also the same.

"and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee." -1832

"a personage appeard in the midst, of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee" -1835

The language of these four accounts is the same. There are two personages in both accounts.

 

Here's an excerpt from a Richard Loyd Anderson Ensign article.

"Many Christians who comfortably accept Paul’s vision reject Joseph Smith’s. However, they aren’t consistent in their criticisms, for most arguments against Joseph Smith’s first vision would detract from Paul’s Damascus experience with equal force.

For instance, Joseph Smith’s credibility is attacked because the earliest known description of his vision wasn’t given until a dozen years after it happened. But Paul’s earliest known description of the Damascus appearance, found in 1 Corinthians 9:1, was recorded about two dozenyears after his experience.

Critics love to dwell on supposed inconsistencies in Joseph Smith’s spontaneous accounts of his first vision. But people normally give shorter and longer accounts of their own vivid experiences when retelling them more than once. Joseph Smith was cautious about public explanations of his sacred experiences until the Church grew strong and could properly publicize what God had given him. Thus, his most detailed first vision account came after several others—when he began his formal history.

This, too, parallels Paul’s experience. His most detailed account of the vision on the road to Damascus is the last of several recorded. (See Acts 26:9–20.) And this is the only known instance in which he related the detail about the glorified Savior prophesying Paul’s work among the Gentiles. (See Acts 26:16–18.) Why would Paul include this previously unmentioned detail only on that occasion? Probably because he was speaking to a Gentile audience, rather than to a group of Jewish Christians. Both Paul and Joseph Smith had reasons for delaying full details of their visions until the proper time and place." 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/04/parallel-prophets-paul-and-joseph-smith?lang=eng

 

Also, don't quote me,  but I recall hearing somewhere that the earliest LDS missionaries told people Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son. If anyone knows where this is said, please tell me.

 

I would also like to add, if Joseph Smith lied about the first vision, then the Book of Mormon is a hoax. If a hoax, Joseph Smith had the devil's luck, because the amount of meaningful connection to Hebrew, the ancient near east, and (then considered foolish) complex civilization in the Americas, and others, should not be there. (Some sectarians actually do believe the devil is the origin of the book of Mormon.)

Once you take away a supernatural origin for the book of Mormon, you enter the realm of Coyote and Roadrunner, the illuminati, and Rube Goldberg.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, clbent04 said:

But these details you omitted or changed are immaterial to the story. They don't matter. Whether it was 15 or 25 big horn sheep, does the story teller and his audience really care? No. I understand you saw a lot of big horn sheep either way. 

Now, does it make a difference if Jospeh saw one or two "Lords"? Yes. It's not an immaterial fact to omit. A young man has the most powerful experience of his life when he receives a vision where two heavenly beings appear, one introduces the other, and both personally address Joseph.

I don't understand how you would have an experience like that and not clearly state seeing two "Lords". It's important to the story, important to the concept of the Godhead (how it's identified and how it functions), and it's especially important to describe in your personal written account of what happened. Joseph wasn't casually sharing a good hiking story with a friend, he was writing down the most profound experience of his life.

But, who gets to decide what is and isn't "material to the story"?  

Later apostolic commentators like Talmage and Hinckley have taken the First Vision as immediate evidence of the constitution of the Godhead; and our modern missionaries follow suit.  But I'm not aware that Smith ever used the First Vision to catechize his followers about the relationship of the Father to the Son--not in 1832, at any rate.  Notably, around this time the Lectures on Faith are published; which also encompass a view of the Godhead that we now know to be incomplete.  So it may even be that Joseph didn't understand exactly Who he had seen and what it meant at that point; and even if he did, the reason for relating this story has to do with man's relationship to divinity and not divinity's relationship to divinity. 

[clbent04]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 So it may even be that Joseph didn't understand exactly Who he had seen and what it meant at that point

Your memory is most clear and vivid the closer you are to when an event happened. Details of a memory don't expand and become more vivid to you as more years go by. Our own memories show us it's quite the opposite.

1832 Account

I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee.

1838 Account

"I saw two personages (whose brightness and glory defy all description) standing above me in the air. One of <them> spake unto me calling me by name and said (pointing to the other) 'This is my beloved Son, Hear him.'"

Edited August 19, 2017 by clbent04

[Anddenex]

Anyone ever tell a story where people, who were attending, were omitted out? I am really not sure why members are bothered by different events shared (just my opinion); I understand though why anti-Mormons love this as they are looking for anything like the Pharisees with Christ when he lived. The first in 1832 he shares the Lord visited him, is this true? Yes. Does this story negate the Father was there also? No.

If two people visited me, and one directed me to speak to the other, and I spoke with the other the majority of the time. I would say the same thing, I spoke with [insert name] and he told me this. I do not need to address that both were present for the event, experience, to be true. I only need to speak the truth of what did occur. Did Joseph Smith speak with the Lord? Yes, then the first version is true, it doesn't matter what was left out. The Church could be right, as at times, we all address God the Father as the Lord, or God, and they are interchanged quite a bit even in scripture.

What is interesting to me, and what the Spirit has testified to me is how I learned the whole conversion story of my Father through different stories.

First Version:

"I found the missionaries and I was baptized."

Second Version:

"I was in Utah, and I had been searching for a church to join, possibly the true church if there were any. I was introduced to the missionaries, and I discovered it was true for myself."

Third Version:

"In the army I had a friend who decided that there was one true church, not all could be correct. He searched for this truth. When my mother died I begin to think about death, and if my mother truly still lived after death. I remembered this friend and begin my own search. After a year of searching I had almost given up and decided there was no true church. I was living for a short time with my brother, and he could see I was frustrated. He asked about my frustration and I shared with him my story. He then introduced me to the missionaries (my uncle had joined the church a few years before my father)...." I am closing this version here so as not to make it longer.

I once spoke with an individual who pretended not to be anti-Mormon, and he had his beef with this and tried to send it home. I shared with him this example and asked him strait forward, "Did my father lie to me, and is he conning me?" He was quite, and then finally said, "Yes, your father lied." I then responded, "Have you ever shared a story where items were omitted also"? He share he had, and so I responded back with, "So then, you are a liar and a fraud also." He didn't respond back, and changed the subject.

Due to this example in my life, I have never been bothered by the different versions of his experience. My father wasn't lying. He shared with me what he felt was important to share at the time. As I aged, and matured, I received more, and the third version was while I was on my mission. It was wonderful to hear the full experience of my father's conversion to the Church.

[clbent04]

4 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

Maybe what looks like two inconsistent accounts is really Joseph describing two different experiences he had as a young teenager, and he never elaborated on this publicly in his life time.

Think of how amazing it would be to have God the Father and Jesus Christ appear to you for the first time.  It would be an indelible experience.  I do not believe that even after repeated visits from heavenly visitors that you could ever confuse what happened when you had that first vision

Edited August 19, 2017 by clbent04

[clbent04]

3 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

The following accounts are also the same.

"and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee." -1832

"a personage appeard in the midst, of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee" -1835

The language of these four accounts is the same. There are two personages in both accounts.

How are there two personages in the 1832 account?

3 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

Joseph Smith was cautious about public explanations of his sacred experiences until the Church grew strong and could properly publicize what God had given him. Thus, his most detailed first vision account came after several others—when he began his formal history.

The 1832 account is Joseph writing in his own personal journal about his experience. This journal was not made public until later on. Joseph would not have any need to water down the details of the First Vision when he was writing the experience in his personal journal

[Just_A_Guy]

59 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Your memory is most clear and vivid the closer you are to when an event happened. Details of a memory don't expand and become more vivid to you as more years go by. Our own memories show us it's quite the opposite.

1832 Account

I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee.

1838 Account

"I saw two personages (whose brightness and glory defy all description) standing above me in the air. One of <them> spake unto me calling me by name and said (pointing to the other) 'This is my beloved Son, Hear him.'"

You are conflating the *memory* with the *account* of the memory.  No one's talking about how "vivid" the recollection was.

And yes, sometimes details that were lost in earlier reminiscences come back on further reflection.  This certainly begs questions of suggestibility; but it does not make the detail false.

[person0]

Another important thing to consider is the possible differences of context in which he was retelling the events.  When my children ask me to read the same book over an over again I start leaving out sections, sometimes pages, I read faster, etc.  Imagine if you had to tell the story of having experienced the first vision over and over again.  You might stress what you felt would be important to the specific individual(s) to whom you were speaking.  Unless Joseph explicitly said that he only saw one person, I would suggest he was placing more importance on something else at the time.  Seeing two personages is a much bigger question to answer for many of us, but for him, it was not his most important concern, nor was it one of the reasons he initially sought the Lord in prayer.

Also, Joseph's vision was real and he was present to experience it, he did not need faith, nor the Spirit, to be with him in order to state the events that actually occurred, he simply could tell it.  It was not a revelation that had to be written in the moment, it is a permanent memory that he will always have.  However, when I tell someone the account of the first vision, I am seeking specifically for the Spirit to bear witness of it's truth, and am seeking the guidance of the Spirit to aid me in retelling it accurately.  Joseph did not meticulously prepare to retell his experience, nor did he memorize a written version of it, he simply recalled it from memory.  The variations in the accounts are more of a witness that he was telling the truth than anything else.

Have you ever told someone something important and then later come back to say, 'oh yeah, and [x important part] too'?  Just because Joseph was a prophet of God with an important message, that doesn't preclude him from the frailties of man.

Edited August 20, 2017 by person0

[Snigmorder]

1 hour ago, clbent04 said:

How are there two personages in the 1832 account?

The 1832 account is Joseph writing in his own personal journal about his experience. This journal was not made public until later on. Joseph would not have any need to water down the details of the First Vision when he was writing the experience in his personal journal

He wasn't watering them down.

[Snigmorder]

1 hour ago, clbent04 said:

How are there two personages in the 1832 account?

The language of the 1832 and 1835 accounts are virtually the same save for one detail, both persons are called Lord. It seems strange to say that the Lord opened the heavens when no Lord had yet appeared. If there was only one Lord, it would've been better written as "a pillar of light rested upon my head and the heavens were opened upon me and I saw the Lord."

[Guest]

2 hours ago, clbent04 said:

Think of how amazing it would be to have God the Father and Jesus Christ appear to you for the first time.  It would be an indelible experience.  I do not believe that even after repeated visits from heavenly visitors that you could ever confuse what happened when you had that first vision

No I am not saying he confused them.  I am saying he described one event the first time and a different event the other three that happened at a different time!  I am saying we have everything confused by assuming Joseph was talking about the same events in all of his accounts.

It would be kind of like if someone asked about the attack on the world trade center, and one day we said the towers did not fall, and later we said the towers did fall.  This may appear contradictory, but in truth we were talking about the 1993 attack the first time and 9/11 the next time.  There was no confusion in our minds that we were discussing two different events.  It just looked like a contradiction to who we were talking to because they assumed we were talking about a single event.

I hypothesize Joseph was referring to one event in which only the Father appeared, and later on described a different event involving the Father and the son both (or vice versa).  We have read a contradiction into the accounts where none exists because we have assumed they refer to the same event in Joseph's life.

I am just theorizing that the 1832 account may have been a different vision that happened when Joseph was 15, that he had not publicized, telling Joseph his sons were forgiven, and the other three are the first vision that happened when Joseph was 14.  Maybe this is possible?

Edited August 20, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[clbent04]

28 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

Maybe this is possible?

It's good thinking, but I would lean more towards believing he was referring to the same event since it's almost universally accepted among members of the church to be so. If he was referring to different instances, I think Joseph would have told some of the early members of the church this was the case, and it would have been documented by someone early on as being a possibility

Edited August 20, 2017 by clbent04

[clbent04]

34 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

The language of the 1832 and 1835 accounts are virtually the same save for one detail, both persons are called Lord. It seems strange to say that the Lord opened the heavens when no Lord had yet appeared. If there was only one Lord, it would've been better written as "a pillar of light rested upon my head and the heavens were opened upon me and I saw the Lord."

This interpretation suggests the two "Lords" appear to Joseph at different times when no other account suggests likewise

[clbent04]

54 minutes ago, person0 said:

Imagine if you had to tell the story of having experienced the first vision over and over again.  You might stress what you felt would be important to the specific individual(s) to whom you were speaking.  Unless Joseph explicitly said that he only saw one person, I would suggest he was placing more importance on something else at the time.  Seeing two personages is a much bigger question to answer for many of us, but for him, it was not his most important concern, nor was it one of the reasons he initially sought the Lord in prayer.  

Well said. This is somewhat along the lines of my thought earlier.

19 hours ago, clbent04 said:

maybe Joseph was so overwhelmed by how amazing his vision was and how much he experienced, that he only felt compelled to write down what he thought to be the most pertinent details. Otherwise he might of felt bogged down at the thought of trying to describe his experience perfectly on paper

 

57 minutes ago, person0 said:

Have you ever told someone something important and then later come back to say, 'oh yeah, and [x important part] too'?  Just because Joseph was a prophet of God with an important message, that doesn't preclude him from the frailties of man.

Good point

[Snigmorder]

25 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

This interpretation suggests the two "Lords" appear to Joseph at different times when no other account suggests likewise

They do appear at different times in 1832 and 1835. When he actually published it for all the world to see, he left out choreography and focused on the point of such a publication, that's my guess anyhow.

[clbent04]

6 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

They do appear at different times in 1832 and 1835. When he actually published it for all the world to see, he left out choreography and focused on the point of such a publication, that's my guess anyhow.

I totally missed this. You're right. This actually answers my question on this. As you mentioned earlier, the way Joseph Smith structured his written account in 1832 and references to "the Lord" matches the Lords appearing at different times in his 1835 account. This makes more sense. It also suggests Joseph intended to refer to two Lords in his written account. Thanks @Snigmorder

1 hour ago, Snigmorder said:

The language of the 1832 and 1835 accounts are virtually the same save for one detail, both persons are called Lord. It seems strange to say that the Lord opened the heavens when no Lord had yet appeared. If there was only one Lord, it would've been better written as "a pillar of light rested upon my head and the heavens were opened upon me and I saw the Lord."

 

Edited August 20, 2017 by clbent04