Critics often claim the Latter-day Saint movement tells “inconsistent stories”—especially around the First Vision, priesthood restoration, Book of Mormon revisions, plural marriage, and the 1978 revelation. But when you lay out the primary sources, something surprising happens:

the Restoration story becomes more consistent, not less.

The so-called “contradictions” actually follow a recognizable biblical pattern—one in which God unfolds His work gradually, invites human development, and expects His prophets to articulate sacred experiences over time.

This article summarizes the historical record, uses primary documents, compares events to biblical precedent, and responds directly to the modern trope of “inconsistency.”

The First Vision: Not a Contradiction—A Gradual Articulation of a Deeper Experience

One of the most common claims is that Joseph Smith told “different versions” of his First Vision. The reality is far more personal and more human.

Joseph was only 14 years old when the vision occurred. The earliest written account we possess was produced twelve years later—not because Joseph was hiding something, but because the experience was too personal, sacred, and overwhelming for a teenage farm boy to immediately formalize into a polished narrative.

Joseph historians agree:

the original grove experience was almost certainly deeper and richer than any of the later accounts.

This means the variation in the written accounts is not evidence of fabrication—it is evidence of a spiritual experience larger than teenage language could capture, gradually articulated as Joseph matured.

And the accounts fit Joseph’s ministry at the time:

• 1832 account: focuses on forgiveness of sins—the main theme of the Book of Mormon.
• 1835 account: mentions angels—Joseph was teaching about ministering spirits.
• 1838 (canonical) account: emphasizes the rejection of creeds—reflecting conflict with ministers after the Church’s establishment.
• 1842 Wentworth letter: short, missionary style summary.

Importantly, the Book of Mormon (1829) already condemns man-made creeds—see 2 Nephi 28—long before Joseph wrote the 1838 account.

The doctrine appears in independent sources, reinforcing the overall consistency of Joseph’s experiential memory.

In the Bible, this is normal: Paul tells the Damascus Road story three different ways (Acts 9, 22, 26), each with different details and emphases.

Different is not inconsistent.

Different is human and deeply biblical.

Priesthood Restoration: Two Events, One Coherent Pattern

Critics also note that Joseph and Oliver did not write detailed public accounts of the priesthood restoration immediately. But their early journals and letters confirm the same sequence we accept today:

• May 1829: John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic Priesthood (JS History 1:68–72).
• Shortly after: Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood.
• 1830 onward: ordinations and confirmations began appearing in documents.

Why wasn’t it all written down in detail immediately?

The Bible teaches us that sacred ordinances often emerge in stages, with understanding developing over time. Consider:

• Israel received Passover first, then clarification of the Law of Moses later.
• Jesus granted priesthood authority to His disciples long before Pentecost fully empowered them.

Joseph followed the same ancient pattern: the gift preceded the public explanation.

This isn’t inconsistency—it’s continuity with scripture.

Changes in the Book of Mormon: Normal Revision, Not Doctrinal Drift

Another trope claims the Church hides the fact that the Book of Mormon has been edited. But Joseph said openly:

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth.”

—Joseph Smith, 1841

“Most correct” refers to doctrine, not grammar or typesetting.

Nearly all Book of Mormon edits fall into normal categories:

• Spelling and punctuation corrections (the 1830 edition had almost none).
• Printer errors fixed in later printings.
• Minor clarifying adjustments (e.g., “Mother of God” → “Mother of the Son of God”).

The biblical record undergoes the same process. Jeremiah was edited. The Gospels circulated in versions. Paul’s letters were copied by hand and corrected to align with best manuscripts.

If anything, the Book of Mormon’s textual stability is astonishing for a first-edition work dictated aloud in 65 days.

Plural Marriage → Ending Plural Marriage: Revelation Is Often Temporary

Some say the shift from practicing plural marriage to ending it is inconsistent. But again, the Bible sets the precedent:

• Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and David practiced plural marriage.
• The New Testament church did not.
• Even Abraham’s marriage arrangements shifted through revelation and circumstance.

Plural marriage in the early LDS Church was:

• Commanded in the 1840s,
• Modified by the 1880s under extreme national pressure,
• Concluded by revelation in 1890 and reinforced in 1904.

Temporary divine commands are not contradictions. They are part of the same pattern God used with ancient Israel:

• Sacrifices: commanded, then ended.
• Circumcision: commanded, then ended for Gentiles.
• Dietary laws: commanded, then lifted.

God has always changed practices while keeping covenants intact.

Race and the Priesthood: A Restriction, A Reversal, A Pattern Matching Acts 10

The pre-1978 priesthood restriction is a difficult history. But it is not historically unique, nor doctrinally inconsistent with the biblical model of progressive revelation.

In the New Testament:

• The gospel was preached exclusively to Jews for years after Christ.
• Samaritans were included next (Acts 8).
• Gentiles came even later (Acts 10–11).
• Paul declared in hindsight that God had planned this all along.

The 1978 revelation (Official Declaration 2) follows that same pattern:

• An initial restriction not fully understood by early leaders.
• A later revelation expanding blessings universally.
• A prophet describing the decision as a direct spiritual manifestation—just like Acts 10.

It is not inconsistency.

It is the same God revealing His will in His timing.

Conclusion: The Restoration Is Not an Inconsistent Story—It’s a Consistently Biblical One

When you examine LDS history in sequence, using primary sources, something remarkable becomes clear:

• Joseph’s First Vision accounts evolve like Paul’s.
• Priesthood restoration unfolds like biblical authority.
• Scriptural corrections mirror ancient manuscript processes.
• Plural marriage follows the Abrahamic pattern of temporary commandments.
• The 1978 revelation parallels the expansion of the gospel to the Gentiles.

The Restoration doesn’t contradict itself.

It harmonizes with the ancient scriptural world more than modern critics realize.

And when you factor in your key insight—that the real First Vision was likely deeper than any written account, and that Joseph spent years learning how to explain it—the story becomes not just credible…

…it becomes exactly the kind of story the Bible trains us to expect.