The way we interpret major experiences in our lives changes with time, and the details that we emphasize in a story vary according to our audience and our purpose in relating the event. Joseph's First Vision experience was a rich and overwhelming event in which many truths were learned and extensive information was provided. The full significance of that sacred experience might not have even been clear to Joseph for many years. At different times and for different audiences with different needs, Joseph may have interpreted and emphasized details of that event in different ways, focusing on the forgiveness of his sins or the realization that he should join no church or the plain truth that God and Christ were distinct individuals that he saw. Leaving out some details while emphasizing others at different times does not make him a liar.Here is the link The First Vision, read the whole page. The essence of the First Vision is that it is still true. Lindsay gives an excellent example of the three different versions of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. From the same source
If we reject Joseph Smith for offering various accounts that emphasize or exclude different details of the same experience, then by that standard we would also have to reject the Bible. For example, Luke 24:4 says that two angels appeared at the empty tomb to several women, while Matthew 28:2 mentions just one angel. Anti-Mormon writers would have riotous fun with this "contradiction" if it occurred in the Book of Mormon. However, we can give the Bible the benefit of a doubt by suggesting that both Matthew and Luke were describing the same event, but that Matthew overlooked the second angel in his account.If we reject Joseph Smith for giving different details of a divine vision, then we must also reject Paul for his differing accounts of his vision on the road to Damascus. Paul relates this story three times in the Bible (Acts chapters 9, 22, and 26), and each time there appear to be differences, even contradictions. There are many details that differ between the three accounts. A well-known problem concerns the other witnesses who were with Paul. Look at the three accounts:
-- Acts 9:7 --
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.-- Acts 22:9 --
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.--Acts 26:14 --
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me. . .Did the others hear the voice or not? Did they fall or remain standing? Does it really matter? Anti-Mormon critics would revel in an apparent contradiction of this magnitude in the Book of Mormon or in the history of Joseph Smith, but they are quick to gloss over such problems in the Bible. I think we need to be generous with Paul and recognize that the peripheral details are not essential for his message. Perhaps the apparent contradictions just relate different aspects of a single story, with others who may have heard the voice and may have been standing initially, but then later fell and did not hear part of the message. Frankly, it looks like a minor contradiction, perhaps resulting from a lapse in memory concerning details of the event, but it does not bother me because I do not require the Bible to be infallible in minor details to still be scripture from God.
For your information, there are several more differences in the three accounts of Paul's vision worth noting. Some of the differences seem minor and easily compatible. For example, Acts 9 and 22 simply say the light that Paul saw appeared around him, while Acts 26 say the light was around him and those that were with him. All three agree that the Lord said, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" and that Paul said, "Who art thou, Lord?". However, in Acts 9, the Lord says "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" before Paul responds, while Acts 26 has the Lord say that after Paul responds, and Acts 22 makes no mention of that statement from the Lord.
More analogous to the Joseph Smith First Vision accounts, the accounts in Acts 9 and 22 conclude by telling of how Paul regained his sight and make no mention of statements from the Lord about Paul's future mission. Later, though, in Acts 26, Paul does not even mention his blindness and his miraculous recovery, but says instead that the Lord prophesied to him of his future mission among the Gentiles. If Paul were Joseph Smith, critics would accuse him of fabricating new twists to his story and contradicting himself, but I feel it's more fair to believe that both Paul and Joseph were relating different parts of their visionary experiences. Initially, Paul may have been most concerned about the healing of his eyes (as Joseph seems to have been most concerned about the forgiveness of his sins), while later his recollection of the Lord's words about his mission to the Gentiles became a more important part of the vision (as did the explanation of Joseph's future mission).
Also worth noting is the fact that Paul, like Joseph, seems to have waited several years before recording his vision. It may have been 24 years from the time of that vision until the time it was written as we have it in the Bible (Richard L. Anderson, as quoted by Milton V. Backman, "Joseph Smith's Recitals of the First Vision," Ensign, Jan. 1985, pp. 8-17). We should not criticize Joseph for waiting to make a full record, not only because of Paul's precedent, but because young Joseph was in difficult circumstances, lacked academic training, and had been strongly rejected already for sharing it with others. But once he understood that he needed to make a history, he did so quickly.
"Leaving out some details while emphasizing others at different times does not make him a liar."
Brother Millet must have written that!
This contrasts to the multiple first vision accounts recorded by smith. In the historically reported stories he gave:
1. The date / his age — from 1823 (age 16), to 1821 (age 15), to 1820 (age 14)
2. The reason or motive for seeking divine help — from no motive (a spirit appears with the news of gold plates), Bible reading and conviction of sins, a revival, a desire to know if God exists.
3. Different locations
4. Different visitors (a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels, the Father and the Son)
5. One instance he said he knew from his studies all churches were an abomination, in another the "visitor(s)" gave the information.
6. The 1832 handwritten (in Smith's own writing) account contradicts the 'official' account written in 1842.
With these internal contradictions, there are other external contradictions -
1. No revival in 1820
2. If all churches were an abomination, why did Smith try to join a methodist church in 1827?
3. If Joseph Smith saw God in 1820, why did he pray in his room in 1823 to find out "if a Supreme being did exist?"
4. Why was the first vision left out of the first edition of the mormon church history (1835)?
Thus it is clear that Mr. Lindsay sugar coats the real difficulties with the first vision stories with this lame 'parallel' to Paul's three conversion accounts. In the case of Paul, the differences are not contradictions. The same cannot be said for Smith. These and other serious problems and contradictions are explored in greater detail at this mormon web site:
http://www.mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm#therareseveral