Abstract: Some critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have noted that the different accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision, though written by the prophet himself, vary in some details. They see this as evidence that the event did not take place and was merely invented to establish divine authority for his work. They fail to realize that the versions of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus, in which the risen Christ appeared to him, also differ from one another. Indeed, they vary more than Joseph Smith’s accounts of his experience. This article examines those variants.

Some critics have suggested that Joseph Smith contradicted himself in different accounts of his first vision. In one, for example, he says that the Lord told him that all the churches were wrong, while in another he says that he had already come to this conclusion before going out in the woods to pray. I see no real contradiction between Joseph Smith believing, when he went to pray, that he should join none of the churches, and the Lord confirming that thought by revelation. After all, he went into the woods to get an answer. If his mind was already made up and he merely needed confirmation, this fits the pattern described in D&C 9:8, where the Lord said, “you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right.” The point of the official published version of Joseph Smith’s story is that he received a revelation on the issue. But even that version does not preclude the idea that he had already determined the answer and needed confirmation.

In one account, Joseph says that he saw “the Lord,” while in another he notes that he saw “two personages.” Similarly, one account mentions that he saw “angels,” a fact omitted in the others. Rather than viewing this as contradictory, I see it as merely a matter of emphasis. I have done the same thing when recounting events in my life, sometimes omitting details that are irrelevant to the point I am trying to make or that do not suit the audience or the medium of expression. But this does not mean that I am inventing the story. As for the variants “the Lord,” “two personages,” and “angels,” we can note that, in the Bible, the Lord is often said to be an angel (which merely means messenger).¹ As late as 1880, John Taylor used verbiage similar to that of Joseph Smith, speaking of the Prophet’s first vision. While mentioning the Father and the Son, like Joseph, also using the term Lord: “as a commencement the Lord appeared unto Joseph Smith, both the Father and the Son, the Father pointing to the Son said ‘this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him.’ ”²

Other LDS scholars have already effectively dealt with the variants in the different accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision, and while I recommend them to the reader, I shall not rehearse their words here.³

The real subject of the present paper is another “first vision,” the one experienced by the apostle Paul while en route to Damascus. As with Joseph Smith’s first vision, we have several accounts of what happened to Paul in three books of the New Testament (Acts 9:1–30; 22:5–21; 26:12–20; Galatians 1:11–24; and 2 Corinthians 11:32–33). Not surprisingly, these accounts are at variance one with another. Indeed, there are fewer differences between the various accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision than between the five different accounts of Paul’s first vision and his trip to Damascus.⁴

We begin with a chart that compares the different accounts of Paul’s experience, in order that the reader may better visualize the gaps and variants.

In most cases, as in Joseph Smith’s different accounts of his first vision, there are no outright contradictions in the different versions of Paul’s first vision, but some information given in one account is often left out of others. For example, while Acts 22:6 and 26:13 indicate that the vision occurred about noon, Acts 9:3 does not give the time of day. Acts 9:1–2 says that Paul got letters from “the high priest,” Acts 26:12 says it was “from the chief priests,” and Acts 22:5 says it was “the high priest . . . and all the estate of the elders.” This is the very same kind of supposed “contradiction” in Joseph Smith’s account of whom he saw in his vision. And yet neither Joseph’s nor Paul’s accounts are really contradictory.

Also significant is the fact that the words of Jesus to Paul, as recorded in Acts 26:15–18 are much more extensive than the words attributed to him in Acts 9:5–6 and 22:7. Indeed, if these are intended to be verbatim accounts, then there are clear contradictions. Note the following comparisons:

The words of Ananias reported in Acts 9:17 are also at great variance with those found in Acts 22:13–16.

Acts 9:26–30 has Paul coming from Damascus to Jerusalem, where Barnabas introduced him to the apostles, after which he went to Caesarea, then Tarsus. But Paul later wrote to the Galatians (Galatians 1:17–21) that he went first to Arabia, then returned to Damascus and went to see Peter and James three years later before going on to Syria and Cilicia (where Tarsus was located). The much abridged account in Acts 26:20 has him coming from Damascus to Jerusalem and throughout Judaea, with no mention of seeing the apostles. In Acts 22:17–21, we read that Paul came to Jerusalem, where he was praying in the temple when the Lord warned him to flee. Elsewhere, in 2 Corinthians 11:32–33, Paul adds a detail missing from all the other stories, telling how he escaped from Damascus by being let down in a basket through a window.

The point I wish to make is that if we are to allow the Bible to give different versions of Paul’s first vision and his reaction thereto (including different versions of the conversations that took place), it seems unreasonable for anyone to criticize Joseph Smith for similar variants in the different accounts of his first vision.

1. E.g., Genesis 22:15–16; Exodus 3:2–7. ↩

2. John Taylor. 1880. “Discourse by President John Taylor. Delivered in the Salt Lake Assembly Hall, at the Quarterly Conference, Sunday Afternoon, January 4, 1880,” Journal of Discourses 21:61–71. ↩

3. For a book-length treatment, see Milton V. Backman Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision: Confirming Evidences and Contemporary Accounts (2nd ed., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980). The following articles also deal with the subject: Richard L. Anderson, “Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision,” BYU Studies 9/3 (Spring 1969): 373–404; Milton V. Backman Jr., “Awakenings in the Burnt-over District: New Light on the Historical Setting of the First Vision,” BYU Studies 9/3 (Spring 1969): 301–20; Richard L. Bushman, “The First Vision Story Revived,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 4/1 (Spring 1969): 82–93. See also Steven C. Harper, “Evaluating Three Arguments against Joseph Smith’s First Vision” at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/evaluating-three-arguments-against-joseph-smiths-first-vision/. ↩

4. One can also truthfully say that there are greater differences in the various accounts of Christ’s resurrection found in the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) than in Joseph Smith’s accounts of his first vision, but it is not our purpose to delve into that subject in this paper. ↩