How Do I Feel About the Differences in the First Vision Accounts?

Joseph Smith wrote or dictated four accounts of the First Vision, and there are some significant differences in those accounts.¹ I believe it is natural and reasonable for there to be differences. In fact, it seems more likely to me that there would be differences. If he had said exactly the same thing every time, I would be more suspicious that he made up the experience and rehearsed the telling of it.

I’ve worked as a litigation attorney since 2003. It’s a fascinating experience trying to elicit memories under those circumstances. I’ve interviewed witnesses, taken depositions, and questioned witnesses in court. Sometimes people will tell me one thing during our interviews, then give additional or different details in a deposition, or in court, or to a different attorney. Why does this happen? Why do we share different details of the same experience at different times?

The Audience Matters

When we communicate, we adapt our message to our audience. When I get home from work and tell my wife about my day, my communication to her is significantly different than what I would have told a judge in court or another attorney, even if I’m trying to recount the same experience. My wife is a music teacher, not a lawyer, so it would be natural to adjust the details and the way I share the experience when speaking with her.

Another example is is how we talk with children. We adapt our conversation so they can understand. When recounting the same experience to a child as to an adult, we will use different language, share different details, and depending on the age of the child, we might even modulate the tone of our voice.

The Purpose Matters

Every time we share an experience we have a specific reason for telling that story, even though we might not realize the purpose. The reason we share an experience will impact what details we decide to share. One experience could be entertaining at a party with a group of friends, but if we shared that same experience with our parents, we might share different details. The way we share a story and the details we share may differ depending on why we’re telling that story (which is also influenced by the audience).

The Situation Matters

The situation we are in when we tell a story has an impact on how we tell it and what details we share.

For example, if you’ve never testified in court, it can be a stressful experience. That stress and anxiety and the resulting physiological responses have a significant impact on a person’s ability to recall details, whereas a relaxing dinner with a friend would evoke a much different emotional response. Isn’t it reasonable to think that a person sharing the same story in each environment will share different details?

Memory is Not a Perfect Reproduction

We tend to think that our memory works like a video, replaying the same details identically every time. But memory doesn’t work like that. Instead, we recall memories in a “constructive process,” where we bring different details together to construct what we want to say.

Memory is not a file cabinet

Stephen C. Harper, a professor of religion at BYU,² has often shared his perspective on memory, particularly as it relates to the various accounts of the First Vision:

“By default, it seems like as humans we think of memory the way we might think of a file cabinet or a DVD, it’s something that’s stored intact and whenever we want to replay it, we just get it out of the file or we put it in the player and there it is, and it’s the same memory. It turns out that nobody, no scholars of memory, no scientists or psychologists who’ve made this their life’s work think about memory that way.”³ Professor Harper has written a great book on this topic, called “First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins.”⁴

Memory is a constructive process

Daniel L. Schacter has performed significant research regarding constructive memory.⁵ The study by Dr. Schacter states an observation that everyone should understand: “Despite the wealth of contrasting and sometimes conflicting ideas, there are some basic observations on which memory researchers can agree. One of the least controversial—but most important—observations is that memory is not perfect. . . . [M]emory is not a literal reproduction of the past, but rather is a constructive process in which bits and pieces of information from various sources are pulled together .”⁶

As Professor Harper states, our memory is not a video that we can replay in exactly the same way every time. Rather, we recall “bits and pieces” of information from our memory and reconstruct them as we recount those memories as stories. Our memory impacts that process, but the audience also impacts that process, as does the situation we are in, and the reason why we are telling that particular story. In other words, our present circumstances impact our memory of past events.

I have seen this play out over and over in my work as an attorney. People will tell different details of experiences in different circumstances. This does not mean they’re lying. It doesn’t mean they’re intentionally stating falsehoods or trying to mislead. It simply means that they recall different details of the same experience at different times under different circumstances.

Memory and the First Vision

I have experienced first-hand that people share different details of experiences depending on the circumstances, and it is reasonable to me that Joseph Smith would share different details of the First Vision at different times. Personally, for me, this strengthens the credibility of the experience. By studying the different accounts, I have learned different things and it has helped me to understand perhaps a little better the impact of the vision not only on the Church, but on Joseph Smith personally.

I would encourage you to listen to Episode 5 of The First Vision: A Joseph Smith Papers Podcast,⁷ which discusses some of the differences among the various First Vision Accounts, and talks about the circumstances of Joseph Smith’s telling of those various accounts that provide insight into why there are differences.

So What?

Each of us has to decide what we will believe. But before you make a judgment call about what you think of the differences in the First Vision, I would encourage you to examine your own personal experiences with sharing memories. Don’t you share different details of the same experience depending on the situation? Haven’t you heard people tell the same experience at different times, but with different details? Based on those experiences, isn’t it at least possible that Joseph Smith could be sharing a true experience, and that the different details could give us a more complete understanding of what happened during that event?

References

1. “The First Vision Accounts,” https://discoverfaithinchrist.com/the-first-vision-accounts/.
2. Stephen C. Harper, “About Me,” https://stevencraigharper.com/about-me/.
3. Faith Matters, “Memory and the First Vision – Stephen C. Harper,” https://faithmatters.org/memory-and-the-first-vision-steven-c-harper/.
4. Stephen C. Harper, “First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins,” Oxford University Press, 2019. Professor Harper has written several other books on the First Vision: https://stevencraigharper.com/publications/.
5. Schacter DL, Addis DR. The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory: remembering the past and imagining the future. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007 May 29;362(1481):773-86. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2087. PMID: 17395575; PMCID: PMC2429996.
6. Schacter, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2429996/.
7. The First Vision: A Joseph Smith Papers Podcast, “Episode 5: ‘It Caused Me Serious Reflection,'” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/the-first-vision-a-joseph-smith-papers-podcast, play audio, read the text.