The 1832 account of the First Vision has always been treated as the black sheep of the family when it comes to contemporary accounts of that event. It is the most unique out of the accounts in several ways. Kyle Beshears recently published a chapter, giving an important explanation of some of those differences. He also spoke about these ideas in a recent interview at the Latter-day Saint history blog From the Desk. What follows here is a copost to that interview.
In the interview, Kyle Beshears offered an overview of what makes the 1832 account unique:
The 1832 account is Joseph Smith’s earliest written record of the First Vision and the only one written by his own hand. These facts alone make it unique among the others, which emphasize restoration and Joseph’s role in it. The 1832 account, however, is more personal. Joseph’s spiritual distress is more palpable—his conviction of sin, his desire for forgiveness, and his direct encounter with Christ.
He added, however, that there is a unique feature that is often overlooked:
What sets this account apart is not its ‘strangeness’ of details or presentation.
Rather, the 1832 account’s biblical intertextuality makes it unique from the others. Nearly every sentence echoes scripture, from the “pillar of light/fire”—a blend of Exodus and Paul’s conversion—to God calling Joseph by name, like he did with Moses, Samuel, and Paul. This suggests Joseph framed his vision within biblical patterns, making it resonate with Bible-literate readers.
And although it was never published in his lifetime, the 1832 account reveals how Joseph originally understood his vision as both a moment of redemption and the beginning of his divine calling.
Like many of Smith’s early revelations, the 1832 account is shared in language that is a bricolage of Biblical text.
Beshears shared some of the examples from the text:
The 1832 account is jam-packed with biblical phrases, allusions, and echoes. Virtually every sentence contains language drawn from the Bible, ranging from direct citations to more subtle references, like echoes.
Joseph used things like biblical vocabulary, structure, and themes to describe his experience, penning a narrative that aligns his vision with scriptural patterns of how God called prophets and apostles. This intertextuality suggests that the Bible wasn’t merely a common touchstone but actually the framework through which Joseph articulated his experience.
For example:
- “I am the Lord of glory. This phrase very closely resembles 1 Corinthians 2:8, in which the Apostle Paul describes Christ as “the Lord of glory.” The phrase is surprisingly rare in the Bible, and specifically refers to Jesus.
- “In the glory of my Father.” This phrase appears toward the end of the vision. While it isn’t a direct quote, it strongly echoes Matthew 16:27: “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father.”
- “None doeth good, no, not one.” This is a direct citation of Romans 3:12, which is itself a quote from Psalms 14:1–3 and 53:1–3. This is among the clearest biblical references in the 1832 account.
These examples (and over thirty others) show how Joseph Smith wove together biblical material—sometimes subtly, other times explicitly—to form and frame his visionary experience in a language that Bible-literate Protestants would recognize and respect.
These insights allow Beshears to make an argument for a point that other scholars have missed. In my own analysis of the First Vision, for example, I pointed out that in the early accounts, “Notably absent from the Lord’s words are indications of a prophetic call. It is only in the later accounts of the First Vision—which were written when Joseph Smith was approaching the height of his prophetic career—that Joseph even mentioned hints of his future role as a prophet.” Through use of Biblical language and allusions, however, Beshears argues that Joseph Smith did, in fact, state that the First Vision was the beginning of his calling:
The phrase “he spake unto me saying Joseph” follows a biblical pattern where God calls individuals by name, often prior to calling them to become a prophet or apostle. For example, God said “Moses, Moses” (see Exodus 3:4), “Samuel, Samuel” (see 1 Samuel 3:4, 10) and “Saul, Saul” (see Acts 9:4).
This pattern isn’t simply a stylistic feature of biblical authors. I think it serves a theological function. In each of these instances, the repeated name signals a sort of divine urgency and summons. It marks an important moment of transition, marking the person’s pivot from their former life into a divinely appointed role. …
I am very convinced that the 1832 account of the First Vision is written so that Joseph is clearly receiving a prophetic calling, which runs contrary to the opinion of other researchers. …
True, the later (and more canonical) accounts more explicitly frame the First Vision as a church-restoring commission. However, this earliest version still follows a recognizable pattern of divine calling, especially for people who could ‘pick up’ what Joseph was ‘putting down.’
So, whether Joseph understood it that way at the time or not, the way he structured his account suggests that something beyond a personal conversion moment was taking place.
This was a fascinating insight for me.
Altogether, Kyle Beshears’s analysis has given me a renewed appreciation for the 1832 account of the First Vision. As he put it himself,
The 1832 account is commonly dismissed as an unpolished, simple version of the First Vision. It’s framed as an early, somewhat naive attempt that lacks the clarity and structure of later retellings. But I think this view really underestimates the 1832 account’s literary sophistication and theological depth.
Far from being some kind of ‘rough draft,’ the 1832 account of the First Vision is a carefully composed narrative that speaks in the language of the Bible, skillfully weaving together biblical themes, literary structure, and theological context.
It’s far more complex and intricate than it has been given credit for being in the past.
For more on the 1832 account of the First Vision, head on over to the Latter-day Saint history blog From the Desk to read the full interview with Kyle Beshears.
Leave a Reply