The First Vision is perhaps the most miraculous and spectacular event of the last days. That God would again reveal himself to man shows the love of God, the fulfillment of his plan, and clarifies misunderstandings of doctrine that developed when the original apostles were killed, creeds were formed, and Christianity merged with Roman governance and Greek philosophy centuries ago.
The book A Marvelous Work and a Wonder begins with this statement:
A nationally prominent radio commentator once said he had been asked what message could be broadcast to the world that would be considered more important than any other. After giving the matter much thought, he concluded that being able to announce that a man who had lived on the earth had died and then returned again with a message from God would be the most important announcement possible. If this is true, then the Latter-day Saints have the most important message for the world today.
I have felt the Spirit many times while sharing the sacred story of Joseph Smith and the First Vision. Four years ago, when the older boys and I visited the Sacred Grove, I felt the power of what happened there. Two of the strongest spiritual experiences of my life when the Spirit was undeniably communicating with me happened when, as a missionary, I shared the story of the First Vision and the restoration.
I remember one of our early anniversary trips to St. George when we visited the St. George Temple visitor center. The missionaries convinced us to watch the Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration film, and I remember feeling the Spirit strongly testify that Joseph Smith was a prophet as we watched it together.
Because this event is sacred and miraculous, it is no surprise that critics of the Church attack it.
Assumptions About the First Vision
The deceptive framing Thomas Faulk uses in Letter For My Wife is designed to lead the reader to assume that:
Because different details are shared in different accounts of the First Vision, because we don’t have a written version before 1832, because Joseph was unsure of his exact age when reflecting on it later, and because missionaries didn’t regularly use the First Vision until around 1840, then the whole story must have been made up.
As I read Faulk’s “research” on the First Vision, I am saddened and disgusted by the dishonesty and manipulative tactics he uses to make it sound well researched and authoritative. In reality, he takes things out of context, ignores the historical facts surrounding the events, and pushes assumptions to shake faith in the spiritual nature of the First Vision.
The Anti-Mormons trying to diminish faith try and make us assume that because the first vision was not “immediately” written down, and that because the different accounts are not exactly the same, it was a fabricated lie.
What History Actually Shows
Let’s look at what the history actually shows regarding Joseph Smith’s First Vision.
When Joseph Shared the First Vision He Was Persecuted
From historical records, we only know that Joseph shared the First Vision with a Methodist minister whose congregation he considered joining. In that day, Methodism encouraged sharing personal testimony experiences. When Joseph shared his, expecting understanding, he was instead ridiculed and told his vision was “of the devil, and there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days.”
He mentioned that, “I could find none that would believe the heavenly vision.” That “my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution.”
After Moroni’s visits, the hostility around Joseph became physically dangerous. Mobs tried to steal the gold plates, chased him, attacked him, and searched the Smith home. Some threatened to kill him. People filed lawsuits on false charges, local papers called him a fraud, and men watched his movements closely. One crazy example is when anonymous letter in the Wayne Sentinel claimed that the Smith family had dug up Alvin’s body to use in a magical ritual. The rumor spread so widely that Joseph Smith Sr. felt forced to disprove it. In September 1824, the family opened Alvin’s grave in the presence of witnesses, verified that his remains were undisturbed, and published a notice confirming it. The persecution and strong opposition to the Smith family began long before the Church was organized or the Book of Mormon was translated simply because Joseph said he had seen a vision.
According to Dr. Dirkmaat, In that day, “visionaries” were often labeled as mentally unstable and ministers used accusations of delusion as a weapon against rivals.
Joseph was harassed for sharing a sacred spiritual experience. If this was the reaction you received as a youth, wouldn’t you hesitate to share the most sacred experience publicly?
Joseph Smith Was Not a Writer
We also can’t forget how uneducated Joseph was. He could read well enough, but writing was something he always struggled with. Even late in his life, when he had become well educated, he still relied on scribes for his letters, revelations, and even his personal journal.
Emma Smith said:
“Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon.”
This is very evident in this 1831 letter he struggled to write to Emma.
If spelling and writing was hard for you, like it is for our oldest son, wouldn’t it be difficult to motivate yourself to set aside time to record a detailed personal experience that you wanted to make sure to get right?
When I was looking through my mission journal to find details of some of the spiritual experiences to share on this blog, I found that many of them weren’t there. I never wrote them down. Life was busy. I had phone calls to make, lessons to plan, and I didn’t make the time to write down those experiences. I’m sure I thought I would get to them later, but later never came. That doesn’t mean the experiences didn’t happen. It just means they weren’t recorded until now. And with the way memory works, they won’t include the same details they could have had I recorded them in a daily journal.
Why Different First Vision Accounts Exist
In a Letter For My Wife, Thomas Faulk suggests that the existence of four different First Vision accounts prove that Joseph Smith fabricated the story. Ironically, the very fact that we have multiple accounts undermines Faulk’s first accusation—that “Joseph didn’t share the First Vision.” If Joseph supposedly never told the story, why do we have records of him recounting it to different people, in different settings, across many years? The variety of accounts demonstrates that Joseph did speak about his experience, adjusting the level of detail depending on the audience and circumstance.
It is also clear from the historical record that Joseph was initially cautious about sharing his sacred experiences. Even after seeing the Angel Moroni, he was afraid to tell his own father until he was commanded by the angel to do so. In the 1820s, claiming visions could lead to ridicule, accusations of delusion, or charges of being led by the devil. Joseph learned this immediately when the Methodist minister rejected his account.
Because of this social hostility, and because Joseph was not in the habit of writing personal experiences, the absence of an early written version does not mean he never spoke of the Vision or that it didn’t happen. It simply means we do not have surviving written documentation from those early oral tellings.
The reality is that there are not multiple versions of the First Vision. What we have are several records, each highlighting different parts of what Joseph was thinking and some of what he experienced during what we now call the First Vision.
1832 First Vision Account – Joseph’s Mindset in Praying
In 1832, while Joseph Smith was in Greenville, Indiana caring for the injured Bishop Whitney, who had broken his leg on a trip back from Missouri, he bought a notepad and used that rare period of idle time to begin a journal recording his thoughts and history. This journal includes our earliest known written record that references some details of the First Vision.
By reading this first vision account, it is apparent that his focus was not to tell the full “First Vision” experience, but rather to share his thoughts and feelings that led him to desire forgiveness for his sins and to know how he could obtain salvation.
The first portion is one of the rare records we have in Joseph’s own handwriting. The rest was written in Kirtland by Frederick G. Williams. Physically writing for Joseph was difficult, and dictation simply worked better for him.
This account was written in his personal history and never shared publicly. It was likely never shared publicly because Joseph wasn’t satisfied with these written words to tell his story, didn’t think they accurately reflected his true thoughts and attitudes from a decade earlier, or simply made this reflection for his personal journal.
Joseph never claimed it was a full account of what happened. He was simply reflecting on the experience, focusing on why his mind was so focused on religious matters, and providing a brief overview of how he came to know that his sins were forgiven.
1835 Account – Scribe’s Notes on a Conversation
The 1835 First Vision account came from Joseph telling his experience to a “Jewish minister” who walked into his home talking about religion and asking questions. Because of the setting, Joseph shared the first vision experience at a surface level. His language fits the background of the man he was talking to. The notes were written by a scribe, Warren Parrish, who was also present at this meeting and put this conversation in Joseph’s journal. This is not from an audio recording, so they are not likely a word-for-word transcript of everything that was discussed. Like the 1832 account, Joseph didn’t share or intend to share this account with the world.
Joseph shared portions of the First Vision other times in personal conversations such as this one. Those other accounts may have included additional details that we don’t have today. However, those oral accounts were either never recorded or recorded in documents that we don’t have.
1838 First Vision Account – The Official Public Version
The 1838 account is the polished, edited, public version Joseph intended to publish. The writing began in Far West, but because the Saints were exterminated from the state, Joseph spent months in Liberty Jail, and then had to rebuild life in Illinois, it was not published until 1842, when it appeared in the Nauvoo Times and Seasons. This history was later published in 1851 as part of the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price.
Joseph wrote this public version because many stories, rumors, and interpretations about the history of the Church and the First Vision were circulating. Joseph wanted to correct the falsehoods with an accurate, truthful record. In the 1838 First Vision account, he focuses on his confusion about religion—something many others also felt and could relate to. In this version, Joseph carefully explains the details of the vision, including why, where, and how it happened. This is the only account in which Joseph clearly aims to provide the full overview of the First Vision with its essential details.
1840 Orson Pratt Missionary Tract
In 1840, while serving in England, Orson Pratt published a missionary tract describing the First Vision. This is a secondhand account based on what Pratt remembered Joseph telling him. It was never meant to be a full retelling—just a set of details to help teach the restored gospel in England.
When I was a missionary, we shared Joseph Smith History from the Pearl of Great Price, but not the entire story. We didn’t start with the dark, frightening parts. We shared the parts that brought light and helped investigators feel the spirit. We weren’t hiding the full story, but merely focusing on the portions that would best build faith. Missionaries in 1840 did the same thing.
1842 First Vision Account to the Editor of a Chicago Newspaper
The last major written version is the Wentworth Letter. Joseph wrote a letter to the editor of the Chicago Democrat, who was assisting a friend in compiling a history of American religious movements. With this audience and reason, Joseph’s account of the First Vision in the Wentworth Letter is very brief and tailored to a non–Latter-day Saint audience, offering a concise overview rather than full detail. The Wentworth Letter provides short summaries of key events in the Restoration and concludes with the Articles of Faith. This letter was also published in the Times and Seasons.
Why Context for the First Vision Matters
The First Vision is one of the most impactful events in history. The “different versions” of the First Vision were written at different times, for different purposes, and for different audiences. That is why they are not all identical, and only one of these accounts was written to be a public comprehensive history of church history.
Historians expect multiple accounts of the same event to vary, especially when they were written years apart, for different audiences, and for different purposes. As Dr. Gerritt Dirkmaat explains, identical accounts are what you usually find when someone has rehearsed a lie. Natural human experiences sound different each time they are described.
Joseph’s First Vision accounts follow this normal historical pattern. Each one was written in a different setting, whether it was a private reflection, a journal entry for a visitor, an official history that corrected false rumors, or a summary for people who were not members. Because of that, each account highlights different parts of the same experience. Variation is not evidence of dishonesty. It reflects a real experience told at different times to different people.
Critics flip basic historical reasoning by treating small differences as proof that the event never happened. This ignores the fact that Joseph had limited education, relied on scribes, and never claimed that any single account was a complete version.
What matters is that the accounts do not contradict each other. They all describe his confusion, his prayer, the appearance of heavenly beings, and instruction he received from them. The differences are in emphasis, not in core details. As Dirkmaat points out, if we used the critics’ method on any other historical figure, we would have to throw out almost every historical record we have. Instead of weakening Joseph’s story, the multiple accounts show that he consistently shared a real experience in a natural way over many years.
Rebuttal to Letter For My Wife First Vision Arguments
Comparing the “differences” in these accounts to “prove” Joseph was lying is dishonest. The manipulative approach Thomas Faulk uses is not the result of “studying the Joseph Smith Papers.” It comes from taking compelling findings from other anti-Mormon sources used by the Palmers, the CES Letter, and others to create doubt and cognitive dissonance on a miraculous experience that should bring light and peace.
Timeline
In Letter for My Wife, Faulk goes into long explanations about how “there was no written record of the First Vision until 1832,” as if that point proves anything. He adds extra details, throws in pictures, and brings up unrelated material like the publication dates of the Book of Commandments in 1833, early issues of The Evening and the Morning Star, The Messenger and Advocate, and even the Voice of Warning pamphlet.
He stacks example after example of publications that did not include the First Vision, trying to make it look like this is meaningful evidence and that his research proves something significant. This is a classic red herring argument. He cites unrelated information to distract from the fact that none of it actually supports his claim.
It’s a weak approach. A lack of publication is not evidence of anything. The fact that early Church publications didn’t include the First Vision does not make it untrue or suggest it never happened.
It’s far more reasonable that Joseph Smith simply didn’t feel the need to promote his private heavenly vision in the early years of the Church. And based on the rapid growth from 1830 to 1840, the Church clearly didn’t need widespread public knowledge of the First Vision for people to accept Joseph as a prophet with a divine calling.
There IS Evidence of First Vision Accounts
But, guess what.
There actually IS historic evidence that the First Vision account was shared privately, with those he trusted, well before the 1840 publication. The 1838 history was written specifically to correct false stories circulating about the early Church and to set the record straight. In her article on Fair Latter Day Saints, Sarah Allen sites multiple historic documents that demonstrate that Joseph Smith did indeed share the story of the First Vision. Here are a few of the documented sources she brings up:
- Painesville Telegraph – Nov 16, 1830
Mentions Joseph claiming divine visions. - Painesville Telegraph – Dec 7, 1830
Refers to Joseph receiving heavenly revelations. - Palmyra Reflector – Feb 14, 1831
Notes Joseph reporting a heavenly vision. - Richard (Taggart/Bush) Letter – Jan 1831
Early convert says Joseph had seen the Lord. - Mormonism Unvailed – 1834
Anti-Mormon book acknowledging Joseph preached early visions. - Patriarchal Blessing from Joseph Smith Sr. – Dec 9, 1834
References Joseph being called and visited by heavenly beings. - W.W. Phelps Hymn (Sacred Hymns) – 1835
Alludes to Joseph being chosen after seeking forgiveness. - 1832 First Vision Account – Summer 1832
Joseph’s earliest written record. - 1835 Journal Account – Nov 9, 1835
Joseph describes two personages visiting him.
The claim that Joseph Smith invented the First Vision in the 1840s to strengthen his prophetic image is false. So why does Faulk spend so much time listing every early publication that didn’t mention it?
Because this is the same tactic used in the CES Letter, and he assumes it’s an effective argument. He even opens with the exact same Gordon B. Hinckley quote about the First Vision being central to the truthfulness of the Church. This isn’t about honest history. It’s about evangelizing anti-Mormonism with a goal of creating doubt.
Faulk’s approach shows the same pattern: ignore the actual evidence, repeat the talking points that sound persuasive, and use selective or misleading material to push readers toward disbelief. The goal isn’t truth. The goal is to get others to see things the way he does, even if the methods are manipulative. A Letter For My Wife has very little original material. It is clear that Faulk’s faith crisis came from studying anti-Mormon material, not from studying the Joseph Smith papers.
I had ChatGPT run me a comparison of when Faulk referenced Runnells CES Letter in his write up of the First Vision. This is what it came up with:
| Topic / Argument | CES Letter (Jeremy Runnells) | Letter for My Wife (Thomas Faulk) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opening Framing: Hinckley Quote | Uses the Gordon B. Hinckley line: “Our whole claim…stands or falls on the First Vision.” | Faulk uses the identical quote as his opener. | Same framing device to raise stakes and create tension. |
| Argument from Silence: “No one knew about the First Vision before 1840s” | Lists early publications that did not mention the First Vision—Book of Commandments, early newspapers, etc. | Faulk repeats the same list of non-mentions and treats absence as evidence. | Exact methodology copied. |
| 1832 Account Emphasis | Claims Joseph originally said he saw “the Lord” but not two personages, using this as evidence of invention. | Faulk repeats the same talking point and leans on the same phrasing. | Core argument replicated. |
| 1835 Journal Account | Claims differences in this account prove inconsistency. | Faulk repeats these same “inconsistency” arguments and quotes the same sections. | Mirrors CES Letter’s analysis. |
| Wentworth Letter (1842) | Claims Joseph downplayed the vision, showing evolution of the story. | Faulk uses nearly identical reasoning and cites the same sections. | Both argue “changing story.” |
| Claim: Church hid or suppressed early accounts | Asserts Church covered up early accounts until the 1960s–70s. | Faulk repeats the suppression claim almost word-for-word. | Same narrative, no new evidence. |
| “Late Invention” Theory | Claims the First Vision story was created in 1838 to solve Church problems. | Faulk repeats the “invented in the 1840s” claim and frames it the same way. | CES Letter origin of the theory. |
| Overemphasis on 1838 Account | Says the Church only settled on the 1838 version because it fit the narrative. | Faulk uses the same reasoning and cites identical passages. | Again, no original argument. |
| Ignoring Early Mentions | CES Letter skips early newspaper references (1830–31), patriarchal blessing (1834), Phelps hymn (1835), etc. | Faulk omits the exact same early evidence, even though it contradicts his point. | Shared selective omission is telling. |
| Use of Misattributed Quotes | CES Letter uses out-of-context or misattributed statements to create distrust. | Faulk repeats identical misquotes (e.g., D. Michael Quinn quoting Packer). | Mirrors strategy and even mistakes. |
| Stylistic Borrowing | Mix of quotes + commentary modeled after anti-LDS forum writing. | Faulk explicitly imitates the CES Letter format (quotes framing each section). | Even layout is derivative. |
| Purposeful Emotional Setup | Runnells frames himself as a sincere seeker who “just wants answers.” | Faulk uses the same personal-struggle framing to gain sympathy. | Identical presentation tactic. |
Common First Vision-like Accounts
In the next section Faulk covers is his list of “common First Vision like accounts.” When I read this, it honestly made me laugh. To me, this is not a problem at all. It is remarkable evidence that the heavens were open, that God was preparing the world for the Restoration, and that He truly does speak to His children. These visions do not weaken Joseph Smith’s experience. They fit perfectly with the idea that God was stirring the hearts of many people in anticipation of the last days and the second coming.
Faulk mentions examples from the burned over district, including the vision of Solomon Chamberlin. In 1816, Chamberlin was searching for the true gospel. Dissatisfied with every denomination he explored, he prayed earnestly for direction. In answer to that prayer, he received a vivid vision in the night in which an angel appeared to him. Chamberlin asked the angel to show him the right path, and the angel told him that all existing churches were corrupt and that God would soon restore the true apostolic church to the earth. This experience shaped the rest of Chamberlin’s life. He believed it completely, printed it in pamphlet form, and traveled across New York and Canada telling others that God was about to open the heavens again and reestablish the Church of Christ with prophets and apostles.
Chamberlin was not alone. There were many in this generation who had visions, dreams, or profound spiritual experiences. Joseph Smith Sr., Lucy Mack Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, and Orson Hyde all had spiritual manifestations long before they heard Joseph Smith’s account. These experiences helped prepare them for the message of the Restoration and were a significant reason that they recognized the truth when they encountered it.
In early 1829, while traveling through western New York, Chamberlin felt prompted by the Spirit to stop at a home in Palmyra. He had no idea who lived there, only that he felt compelled to enter. That home turned out to be the residence of the Smith family. Chamberlin introduced himself and shared the pamphlet he had been carrying for years, which contained the vision he had received thirteen years earlier about the coming apostolic church. The Smiths then told him that God had already begun that work and showed him unbound sheets of the Book of Mormon fresh from the printer. Chamberlin read from the pages and immediately felt the Spirit confirm that this was the fulfillment of his vision. He accepted the Restoration and soon became one of the earliest converts and missionaries in the Church.
While it is theoretically possible that Joseph Smith could have heard rumors about other visionary accounts, there is no historical evidence that he ever read or encountered any of these writings. Claiming that Joseph copied their experiences is not only unsupported, it also contradicts the typical anti Mormon argument. Critics say Joseph was too uneducated to produce original ideas, yet at the same time they claim he was somehow brilliant enough to combine dozens of mystical writings into a coherent theology and narrative. Which is it? The far simpler explanation is that these individuals really did have spiritual experiences, and the similarities exist because the inspiration came from the same divine source, not because Joseph borrowed from them.
Why Does Faulk Have This Section in Letter For My Wife?
This section on the First Vision actually strengthens the case that the world was being spiritually prepared for the Restoration long before Joseph ever entered the Sacred Grove. So why would Faulk have even included it his letter designed to diminish faith in the restoration?
My theory is that this is one of the few areas of original research, one of the rare unique additions Faulk makes that isn’t just taken from the CES Letter.
Which First Vision Account Is Correct?
Faulk next tries to argue that “there are four different First Vision accounts,” and that because they are not identical, the Church supposedly had to “choose” which one to accept. This is a false contradiction argument combined with assumption based framing. He treats the existence of more than one account as if it automatically creates a contradiction, and then layers assumptions on top of that to make it seem like the Church was covering something up. None of this is supported by actual history.
The reality is simple. These were not four competing or contradictory official history accounts. They were four different tellings of the same experience, written at different times, in different settings, for different audiences, and with different purposes. The 1838 account became the public history not because the others were rejected, but because it was written as the official narrative Joseph intended for publication.
Angels, One Being, Two Beings, Forgiveness, or Which Church is True?
Next, Faulk uses what is known as a Gish Gallop argument, firing off a rapid series of claims and supposed problems with quick delivery and without supporting evidence. He first insists that earlier sources only refer to “angels” in the First Vision, then contradicts himself by saying that Joseph’s earliest account mentions “the Lord,” and then claims this is the biggest contradiction of all because the 1832 account only mentions one divine being instead of two. This is what happens when a conclusion is formed first and the evidence is forced to fit it. Once someone assumes the accounts are contradictory, everything becomes ammunition, even when the claims do not line up with basic historical facts or each other. It’s all about creating doubt.
Why Only One Being Mentioned in the Joseph’s Journal Account?
The answer to these supposed contradictions goes back to context. The 1832 account is not Joseph’s attempt to give a full, public description of the First Vision. It is a short, reflective entry in his personal history focused almost entirely on his desire for forgiveness. Because that was the subject, it makes perfect sense that he would emphasize the Redeemer who forgave his sins. In nineteenth century Christian language, the word “Lord” was often used to refer specifically to Jesus, though it could also refer to God in general. Nothing in the 1832 account states that only one celestial being appeared, and does not contradict later accounts. It simply highlights the part of the experience that mattered most to Joseph in that moment.
Critics often argue that Joseph must have believed in the traditional Christian Trinity when he wrote the 1832 account, but this claim is completely unsupported. Joseph had translated the Book of Mormon and only a few months earlier, he and Sidney Rigdon recorded “The Vision” in Doctrine and Covenants section 76, where they clearly describe seeing both the Father and the Son as separate, distinct beings. This alone makes it impossible to argue that Joseph later shifted theology or forgot what he had seen in the Sacred Grove. The accounts differ in emphasis because they were written at different times, for different purposes, and with different audiences in mind.
Joseph Told the Elders He Only Saw Angels
Next, Faulk returns to the claim that Joseph contradicted himself about who appeared in the First Vision. He argues that Joseph must have told a “completely different” story to early Church leaders because later apostles sometimes used the word “angel” instead of explicitly saying “the Father and the Son.” He then pulls a few selectively chosen quotations and treats them as if they overturn every other historical record.
At face value, that might sound concerning, but their are four different flaws with this argument:
-
All of the quotes Faulk uses come from the Journal of Discourses. Remember, the Journal of Discources is not doctrine or an official publication of the church. These were live sermons captured in shorthand and later expanded into longhand, which means they are not exact transcripts. Wording, phrasing, and terminology were often adjusted, summarized, or misunderstood by the recorder.
-
The word “angel” in the early 19th century had a broader range of meaning than it does today. According to period dictionaries like the 1828 Webster’s, “angel” could refer to a divine messenger and was sometimes used to describe the Lord Himself. Using the term “angel” did not exclude a divine appearance by Christ.
-
Faulk quotes selectively. In some of the very sermons he cites, the same speaker also refers to God or Christ directly. He ignores those parts and highlights only the lines where the shorthand recorder used the word “angel.”
-
Quotes do not even discuss the First Vision. Early leaders frequently spoke about the Restoration as a whole—Moroni’s visit, other angelic manifestations, and the gradual unfolding of revelation. Faulk treats any use of the word “angel” as if it must refer to the First Vision, which is not accurate when you read the full context.
In reality, every one of the men Faulk cites—Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, George A. Smith—taught clearly and repeatedly that Joseph saw God the Father and Jesus Christ. They left sermons, writings, and recorded teachings affirming the two personages long before and long after the Journal of Discourses references that Faulk isolates.
It’s also worth noting that all of these sermons were delivered after Joseph’s 1838 history was published and later canonized. These men knew exactly how Joseph described the First Vision, and they taught that version openly. Check out this article a more detailed breakdown of the issues in Faulk’s First Vision argument.
Historical Research or Selective Quoting to Create Doubt?
Faulk simply ignores facts and context because he’s not looking for the true history, he’s sharing a narrative with a goal to create doubt in the First Vision. Faulk lifts these statements out of context and then pretends they are the only things these leaders ever said on the subject.
It is clear that Thomas Faulk was never doing historical research.
I was reading through Sarah Allen’s 2023 rebuttal of the First Vision section of LFMW, as she presented actual historical records that demonstrate blatant lies in Letter for My Wife. Yet several of the claims she rebutted no longer appear in the current version online that I was going through.
Even though Thomas Faulk reportedly resigned from ex-Mormonism in 2020, either he or the ex-Mormon who took over his website removed those claims, likely in response to her work.
It’s hard to keep someone believing your subtle deception when the deception is obviously a lie. The selective edits show that the original version contained obvious factual mistakes, so rather than defend them, which isn’t possible, they cut them. The result is a cleaner letter, but the core argument still depends on selective information and the same pattern of doubt-based framing.
Comparison Between the Original LFMW Argument and the Current
ChatGPT ran a comparison for me between the original published and current version and found these changes to the letter.
| Topic | Current LFMW Version | Original Letter For My Wife |
|---|---|---|
| Opening Framing | States Hinckley quote and launches into timeline concerns. | Same quote, but followed by accusations that Church leaders suppressed information and “pattern of hiding history.” |
| Timeline Argument | Claims no written record before 1832 and no 1830s publications—uses a simpler, shorter description. | Same claim plus stronger language saying leadership “concealed” or “withheld” the First Vision from members for decades. |
| Argument of Silence | States no 1830s journals, newspapers, or publications mention the First Vision. | Same claim BUT explicitly argues this is evidence Joseph had not yet invented the story. This implication is removed in the current version. |
| Book of Commandments / Early LDS Publications | Lists Book of Commandments, Evening and Morning Star, Messenger and Advocate, A Voice of Warning—no First Vision. | Identical list, but the original version asserts this proves Joseph “did not teach the story,” implying fabrication. |
| Number of Members Who “Never Heard It” | Says no members recorded hearing it before 1840. | Same claim, plus the stronger original statement: “Not a single one of the 16,865 members ever recorded hearing about it.” |
| Common Vision Accounts | Lists Stearns, Elias Smith, Asa Wild, Hibbard, Thompson, Chamberlin with little commentary. | Same list, but the original version argues Joseph copied these stories. That accusation is removed in the current version. |
| Claim That Joseph’s Story Was “Common” | Suggests visionary experiences were common in the region. | Explicitly states Joseph’s account was not unique and implies his story was borrowed from others. |
| Multiple Vision Accounts | Lists 1832, 1835, 1838, 1842 with light commentary. | Same list, but more aggressively framed as proof of contradiction. |
| “Which One Is Correct?” Section | Claims discrepancies and notes differences in motivation (sins vs. which church), Satan’s power, number of personages. | Same outline, but the original version explicitly states Joseph changed the story over time. |
| Claim: “I saw the Lord” vs. “Two Personages” | Notes this as a discrepancy. | Same issue, but with argumentative statements accusing Joseph of evolving doctrine. |
| Contemporary Statements (Brigham Young, Woodruff, Taylor, George A. Smith) | Lists the same Journal of Discourses quotes using “angel.” | Same quotes, but the original version explicitly claims these leaders had never heard the First Vision and that Joseph told them a completely different story. |
| Conclusion Drawn from JD Quotes | States that this “makes it seem” the official account is later. | States flatly that these leaders prove the First Vision “did not yet exist” and that Joseph “created” the two-personage story later. |
| S. Dilworth Young Quote | Included. | Included. |
| Interpretation of S. Dilworth Young | Suggests “leadership only became aware 60 years later.” | Explicitly claims early Church leaders “had no idea” about the Father and Son story because Joseph hadn’t invented it yet. |
| Accusations of Concealment | Says CES, manuals, and Church curriculum omit certain details. | Stronger version: claims a “pattern of concealment,” “active suppression,” and that leaders kept the 1832 account hidden until the 1960s. |
| Accusation That Joseph Fielding Smith Hid Documents | Removed entirely from current version. | Joseph Fielding Smith allegedly hid the 1832 account in a “locked vault” and prevented access. |
| Accusation That Orson Pratt’s 1840 Pamphlet Shows Joseph “Didn’t Yet Have the Story” | Mentioned only briefly. | More overt argument that Pratt’s version “proves” Joseph hadn’t yet developed the Father-Son narrative. |
| Revival-Did-Not-Happen Argument | Removed. Not present at all. | Argument that “no 1820 revival happened” (historically disproven). |
| Argument That Early Saints “Never Heard the Story” at All | Softened. | Much stronger, stating early saints “never heard” the story because it “didn’t exist yet.” |
| Accusations Against Lucy Mack Smith’s History | Removed. | Present in original: claims Lucy’s writings contradict Joseph’s timeline. |
| Use of Fawn Brodie / Walters / Campbell Claims | Removed. | Present in original: these hostile sources were cited to frame Joseph as borrowing revival and visionary claims. |
Faith in the First Vision
Believing the First Vision does require faith. The question is, where you place that faith. Should you place faith in Joseph Smith, who consistently testified of what he saw and ultimately gave his life for, or in critics who knowingly distort historical context in order to persuade others not to believe?
Continue reading at the original source →