Was Joseph Smith Persecuted For Sharing The First Vision

[Ariarates]

I am reposting this here because the other thread appears to be devoted to calling eachother names. So while the kids play over there, I thought I'd ask the question in a new thread.

The issue at hand was whether or not Joseph Smith was persecuted for telling people about the first vision. Now I am not well informed on the issue or the contemporary sources, but a while ago I did do some searching on the various first vision stories. I came up with the following references to persecution:

• The 1832 account merely states that nobody believed Joseph's heavenly vision;
• The 1835 account doesn't mention anything about the reception of Joseph's vision;
• The 1838/39 version is, of course, the canonized version and is quite detailed about the persecution.
• Pratt's 1840 "Interesting account" doesn't mention any persecution;
• Joseph's 1842 Wentoworth letter doesn't mention persecution in connection with the first vision, only with the deiscovery of the gold plates (including being shot at muliple times);
• Hyde's 1842 German account doesn't mention any persecution (it leans heavily on Pratt's "Interesting account");
• Joseph's 1843 interview with the Pittsburgh Gazette mentions that they persecuted him after he shared his vision like they persecuted him ever since (paraphrasing here).

So there is some mention of persecution, but Joseph seems to have taken it in stride and didn't dwell on it much. I think the canonized version is the most interesting one because one would expect to find evidence of a coordinated, sustained effort by men of high standing of all sects as described in verse 22. Are there any history buffs here who can confirm this? Thanks!

[Rob Bowman]

Ariarates,

To the best of my knowledge, every documented reference to Joseph being persecuted in the 1820s because of the First Vision is dependent on the 1838 account found in JS-H. We have no evidence apart from that account, and statements dependent on that account, for any "persecution" of Joseph at all (even interpreting that term broadly) prior to 1827.

The argument here is not merely an argument from absence of evidence. We do have evidence of Joseph being ridiculed in the late 1820s for his "gold bible," his story of the angel appearing to him, etc., all of which is consistent with the fact that Joseph's story in the late 1820s and early 1830s consistently began with the angel appearing to him to reveal the gold plates, not with an appearance of Christ. In 1832 Joseph wrote an account of Christ appearing to him but shelved it and said nothing about it publicly to anyone for several years after that. It would be difficult to be persecuted for something if no one knew about it.

I am reposting this here because the other thread appears to be devoted to calling eachother names. So while the kids play over there, I thought I'd ask the question in a new thread.

The issue at hand was whether or not Joseph Smith was persecuted for telling people about the first vision. Now I am not well informed on the issue or the contemporary sources, but a while ago I did do some searching on the various first vision stories. I came up with the following references to persecution:

• The 1832 account merely states that nobody believed Joseph's heavenly vision;
• The 1835 account doesn't mention anything about the reception of Joseph's vision;
• The 1838/39 version is, of course, the canonized version and is quite detailed about the persecution.
• Pratt's 1840 "Interesting account" doesn't mention any persecution;
• Joseph's 1842 Wentoworth letter doesn't mention persecution in connection with the first vision, only with the deiscovery of the gold plates (including being shot at muliple times);
• Hyde's 1842 German account doesn't mention any persecution (it leans heavily on Pratt's "Interesting account");
• Joseph's 1843 interview with the Pittsburgh Gazette mentions that they persecuted him after he shared his vision like they persecuted him ever since (paraphrasing here).

So there is some mention of persecution, but Joseph seems to have taken it in stride and didn't dwell on it much. I think the canonized version is the most interesting one because one would expect to find evidence of a coordinated, sustained effort by men of high standing of all sects as described in verse 22. Are there any history buffs here who can confirm this? Thanks!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Ariarates,

To the best of my knowledge, every documented reference to Joseph being persecuted in the 1820s because of the First Vision is dependent on the 1838 account found in JS-H. We have no evidence apart from that account, and statements dependent on that account, for any "persecution" of Joseph at all (even interpreting that term broadly) prior to 1827.

Rob, if I told some Christians that I saw God face to face, how long do you think it would take for the to persecute and make fun, labeling me mentally disturbed (well not much of a stretch there) or an idiot? The only evidence we need is to look to our own day, this very day and moment.

This is where our critics fail, they cannot give on one simple point…ever! If they did to them it would somehow justify Mormonism, or they would be ostracized by their peers, which brings us back to the same point. So yes JS was persecuted for saying that he had indeed seen a vision. This is just a no brainer.

[ELF1024]

Ariarates,

To the best of my knowledge, every documented reference to Joseph being persecuted in the 1820s because of the First Vision is dependent on the 1838 account found in JS-H. We have no evidence apart from that account, and statements dependent on that account, for any "persecution" of Joseph at all (even interpreting that term broadly) prior to 1827.

The argument here is not merely an argument from absence of evidence. We do have evidence of Joseph being ridiculed in the late 1820s for his "gold bible," his story of the angel appearing to him, etc., all of which is consistent with the fact that Joseph's story in the late 1820s and early 1830s consistently began with the angel appearing to him to reveal the gold plates, not with an appearance of Christ. In 1832 Joseph wrote an account of Christ appearing to him but shelved it and said nothing about it publicly to anyone for several years after that. It would be difficult to be persecuted for something if no one knew about it.

Lost Rob?

I will only participate in a discussion in the "focused" section of the forum with someone who (a) uses his or her real name and so demonstrates some accountability for what he or she says, (b) has demonstrated some willingness to engage in respectful, constructive dialogue, and © shows an ability to back up his or her statements with real documentation.

[Vance]

Rob, if I told some Christians that I saw God face to face, how long do you think it would take for the to persecute and make fun, labeling me mentally disturbed (well not much of a stretch there) or an idiot? The only evidence we need is to look to our own day, this very day and moment.

This is where our critics fail, they cannot give on one simple point…ever! If they did to them it would somehow justify Mormonism, or they would be ostracized by their peers, which brings us back to the same point. So yes JS was persecuted for saying that he had indeed seen a vision. This is just a no brainer.

It really is a no brainer.

Just this week I had an Evangelical, rather vehemently I might add, tell me that there is no more revelation in our day.

The intense hatred for Joseph Smith continues today, and we are to somehow doubt that it didn't start with the first vision?

No brainer indeed.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Vance

[Jaybear]

Rob, if I told some Christians that I saw God face to face, how long do you think it would take for the to persecute and make fun, labeling me mentally disturbed (well not much of a stretch there) or an idiot? The only evidence we need is to look to our own day, this very day and moment.

This is where our critics fail, they cannot give on one simple point…ever! If they did to them it would somehow justify Mormonism, or they would be ostracized by their peers, which brings us back to the same point. So yes JS was persecuted for saying that he had indeed seen a vision. This is just a no brainer.

You claim is easy enough to prove. Take a video of a 14 year old boy, claiming to have seen Christ, put it up on Youtube, and lets see if he is "persecuted."

I would guess that the clip would be widely ignored.

In fact David Mitchell walked around the streets of SLC claiming to have spoken to God. Most people either ignored him, or pitied him. I am not aware of anyone persecuting him.

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

Rob, if I told some Christians that I saw God face to face, how long do you think it would take for the to persecute and make fun, labeling me mentally disturbed (well not much of a stretch there) or an idiot? The only evidence we need is to look to our own day, this very day and moment.

This is where our critics fail, they cannot give on one simple point…ever! If they did to them it would somehow justify Mormonism, or they would be ostracized by their peers, which brings us back to the same point. So yes JS was persecuted for saying that he had indeed seen a vision. This is just a no brainer.

I'm sure some people would make fun of you. And yes, people ridiculed Joseph Smith for many things, including claiming to have seen God. But they didn't do this until after he started making the claim; that is also a "no-brainer." The fact is that Joseph did not start publicly claiming to have seen God until very late in his life. There are hints of the story by the mid-1830s, and Joseph dictated the official account in 1838, but it wasn't published until 1842. Prior to 1842, non-Mormons could not have made fun of Joseph for claiming to see God because they didn't know he had made such a claim. There is one reference in an 1831 Reflector article that reports fourth-hand (!) that Joseph Smith claimed to have "seen God frequently and personally," but this unreliable report doesn't indicate when these visions supposedly occurred, so as far as we can tell it might be referring to visions in 1830. Nor does this article indicate that Joseph Smith was the object of derision or persecution for those alleged claims, even in 1831. We never hear even this much again publicly until the 1840s. The fact is that we have absolutely no evidence, apart from Joseph's claim in his 1838 account, that anyone even knew about this supposed First Vision in the 1820s, let alone that he was persecuted for it during that period.

[ELF1024]

I'm sure some people would make fun of you. And yes, people ridiculed Joseph Smith for many things, including claiming to have seen God. But they didn't do this until after he started making the claim; that is also a "no-brainer." The fact is that Joseph did not start publicly claiming to have seen God until very late in his life. There are hints of the story by the mid-1830s, and Joseph dictated the official account in 1838, but it wasn't published until 1842. Prior to 1842, non-Mormons could not have made fun of Joseph for claiming to see God because they didn't know he had made such a claim. There is one reference in an 1831 Reflector article that reports fourth-hand (!) that Joseph Smith claimed to have "seen God frequently and personally," but this unreliable report doesn't indicate when these visions supposedly occurred, so as far as we can tell it might be referring to visions in 1830. Nor does this article indicate that Joseph Smith was the object of derision or persecution for those alleged claims, even in 1831. We never hear even this much again publicly until the 1840s. The fact is that we have absolutely no evidence, apart from Joseph's claim in his 1838 account, that anyone even knew about this supposed First Vision in the 1820s, let alone that he was persecuted for it during that period.

Yet Rob still feels the need to persecute him... funny... seems he just answered the question with his actions, rather than his words...

[Nathair/|\]

I just re-read the relevant portions of Joseph Smith-History to be sure. The Prophet does claim to have reported seeing a vision, he does not explicitly say he reported seeing the Father and Son. It is a reasonable assumption in the context of the account, but still just an assumption. I don't know if that matters for this discussion or not.

Further, having grown up in the kind of little hick towns I understand 1820's Palmyra to be, I can say it's entirely possible for the kind of persecution he describes to have occurred and there be no contemporary record of it. Of course that doesn't prove much of anything.

Finally, to say it didn't happen when the Prophet reports it did is at best to call into question his reliability as a reporter of his own experiences and perceptions.

Yours under the logical oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Lightbearer]

Why should there be documentation other than the 1838 account? In fact Joseph did not even record the vision (in 1820) until some time later. Of course the varying accounts indicate the audience and their needs which were emphasized. It is interesting that the 1838 would mention persecution, because at that time persecution was utmost in the Prophet's mind (Bogg's extermination order and the Kirtland persecutions were very fresh in his mind.) Why should he tell of an obscure "christian" minister's verbal persections when the visitation of the Father and Son were the most important points not the fallout caused by Satan and his followers. Of course it would not even be a footnote in a newspaper and it is doubtful he told anyone about the good "reverend's" vindictive response until much later when the official account was being recorded for addtion into the canon. I can recall being persecuted in a baptist private school in the 8th grade in 1971 but do you think I have any "evidence" or documented proof? Was it published in the paper? NO it is my word only, so just because it was not recorded until then, does not mean it never happened. We did not have a you-tube or a facebook or a message board to post it on. Does that make it any less true or hurtful?

For that matter does the apostle Paul have any "evidence" other than his own writings that he saw a vision on the road to Damascus or that he was persecuted for it? Perhaps we should throw out the entire Bible as just limited hearsay? I despise all these so-called little "scholars" who try to re-write Mormon history with an Anti-Mormon slant! Let them believe what they want, but on judgment day we will all have to give an account of what was written and said...

Personally I think all the fuss is just an excuse to call the Prophet Joseph Smith a liar, by those who despise him even to this day!

[LeSellers]

Prior to 1842, non-Mormons could not have made fun of Joseph for claiming to see God because they didn't know he had made such a claim.

According to the accepted wisdom of the Evangelical community, Joseph didn't claim to have seen "God" in any account prior to the 1838/42 version anyway. (But see your own comment below.)

I am perfectly happy to recognize that the word "God" may not have been in anything he told the "Methodist preacher"—after all, Abraham saw God on the Plains of Mamre and called Him an "Angel" (Gen 18:1, 33; 19:1), so why not Joseph?

21 Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.

I don't see in this account of the event any mention of Joseph's seeing "God", only that Joseph began to tell him of the vision. It hardly takes a vivid imagination to see that, as soon as Joseph got to the part where "a pillar of light exactly over [his] head ... no sooner appeared than [he] found [himself] delivered from the enemy which held [him] bound. When the light rested upon [him] [he] saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above [him] in the air", that the good reverend would have stopped him shortly there after and told him that all revelation had stopped (incidentally, because men refused to accept any more of it). It may very well have been "just" an "Angel" that Joseph reported having seen to the Methodist preacher, and that was more than enough to set him (the preacher) off on his anti-revelation tirade.

There is one reference in an 1831 Reflector article that reports fourth-hand (!) that Joseph Smith claimed to have "seen God frequently and personally," but this unreliable report doesn't indicate when these visions supposedly occurred, so as far as we can tell it might be referring to visions in 1830. Nor does this article indicate that Joseph Smith was the object of derision or persecution for those alleged claims, even in 1831. We never hear even this much again publicly until the 1840s. The fact is that we have absolutely no evidence, apart from Joseph's claim in his 1838 account, that anyone even knew about this supposed First Vision in the 1820s, let alone that he was persecuted for it during that period.

The translation of the Book of Mormon didn't take place until 1828, so any persecution that happened before then would have been based on the First Vision, with its Personages, not the Moroni visitations. Yet a "Mrs. Palmer", quoted in The Saints' Herald, is quite emphatic that "church men" (which eventually included her father) were actively persecuting Joseph (wanting to “put [him] down”) before he married Emma Hale, an event which preceded any translation work.

Further, this Mrs. Palmer was also emphatic that, prior to her father's being corrupted by the church men, was always happy to hire Joseph Smith, Jun., to help on his farm because he was the best worker available and influenced the other hired boys to work better, too.

Lehi

Edited June 2, 2011 by LeSellers

[Ariarates]

As I read the various posts above, there appear to be two opinions:

1. There was no persecution regarding the first vision;

2. There was persecution but there are no contemporary sources.

The latter would really surprise me in view of what is in Joseph Smith's history (emphasis added, of course):

I soon found, however, 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, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects--all united to persecute me.

How does one excite the public mind without leaving a trace? How can can all the sects unite in bitter persecution without leaving a trace? I can understand if Joseph was considered just a hype but it seems he is saying here that is was a continually growing persecution (and the fact that, in the end, he was lynched by a mob seems to support that). Lemme see what I can dig up myself...

Edit: am I correct in assuming that "professors of religion" refers to people who profess religion rather than academic lecturers on religion?

Edited June 2, 2011 by Ariarates

[Ariarates]

Lemme see what I can dig up myself...

Well, that didn't take long, thanks to Google. I found the following references to newspaper reporting on the 1820 revivals on the fairwiki:

• GREAT REVIVALS IN RELIGION. The religious excitement which has for some months prevailed in the towns of this vicinity...This is a time the prophets desired to see, but they never saw it....—Palmyra Register, June 7, 1820
• REVIVAL. A letter from Homer [N.Y.] dated May 29, received in this town, states, that 200 persons had been hopefully converted in that town since January first; 100 of whom had been added to the Baptist church. The work was still progressing.—Palmyra Register, August 16, 1820
• REVIVALS OF RELIGION. "The county of Saratoga, for a long time, has been as barren of revivals of religion, as perhaps any other part of this state. It has been like 'the mountains of Gilboa, on which were neither rain nor dew.' But the face of the country has been wonderfully changed of late. The little cloud made its first appearance at Saratoga Springs last summer. As the result of this revival about 40 have made a public profession of religion in Rev. Mr. Griswold's church....A revival has just commenced in the town of Nassau, a little east of Albany. It has commenced in a very powerful manner....—Palmyra Register, September 13, 1820
• FROM THE RELIGIOUS REMEMBRANCER A SPIRITUAL HARVEST. "I wish you could have been with us yesterday. I had the pleasure to witness 80 persons receive the seal of the covenant, in front of our Church. Soon after 135 persons, new members, were received into full communion. All the first floor of the Church was cleared; the seats and pews were all crowded with the members...Palmyra Register, October 4, 1820

Later on this fairwiki-entry reads: "Ironically, evidence for the revivals was less prominent than the critics had supposed because they were so common. Newspapers report the novel and unusual; they do not report every-day occurrences".

I would think that the kind of persecution as mentioned in JS's history would be novel and unusual enough to warrant some reporting? Let's see what else I can find.

[David T]

I don't think Joseph would have received much persecution just for saying he saw God - or even God and Jesus - as such appearances appears to be a pretty common aspect of Methodist conversion narratives. There's a great paper in the most recent Journal of Mormon History that discusses Joseph Smith's First Vision in the context of Methodist Conversion Narratives.

I do think Joseph would have gotten flack for proclaiming (or promoting) the concept that all contemporary churches were wrong, or deficient however - especially if he professed this knowledge came by means of a vision.

Edited June 2, 2011 by nackhadlow

[thesometimesaint]

nackhadlow:

Christians of all flavors had been doing much worse to each other for millenia.

[Kevin Christensen]

SNIP

I would think that the kind of persecution as mentioned in JS's history would be novel and unusual enough to warrant some reporting? Let's see what else I can find.

Bushman made the point that it was not novel and unusual but typical enlightment response to reports of visions, which themselves were not especially novel and unusual either. Just not acceptable to the elites of the day. See discussions in Rough Stone Rolling and "The Visionary World of Joseph Smith."

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Deborah]

What I wonder is why whether he was persecuted or not specifically over the FV is such a bug-a-boo with some. Both Joseph and his mother record persecution once he began telling about his vision. I'm not sure what others are looking for. A newspaper article saying "some boy declares seeing God and neighbors started persecuting him." Not likely. However, there is ample evidence that persecution was taking place throughout the prophet's life as he began reporting his visions and establishing the church. I'm not sure why anyone would question that it didn't happen very early on and what that would supposedly prove. Apparently the prophet himself felt the persecution, as did his family. And they were there.

[ELF1024]

What I wonder is why whether he was persecuted or not specifically over the FV is such a bug-a-boo with some. Both Joseph and his mother record persecution once he began telling about his vision. I'm not sure what others are looking for. A newspaper article saying "some boy declares seeing God and neighbors started persecuting him." Not likely. However, there is ample evidence that persecution was taking place throughout the prophet's life as he began reporting his visions and establishing the church. I'm not sure why anyone would question that it didn't happen very early on and what that would supposedly prove. Apparently the prophet himself felt the persecution, as did his family. And they were there.

I think Lehi Lightbearer nailed it... (Whoops!!)

Personally I think all the fuss is just an excuse to call the Prophet Joseph Smith a liar, by those who despise him even to this day!

Edited June 2, 2011 by ELF1024

[Ariarates]

What I wonder is why whether he was persecuted or not specifically over the FV is such a bug-a-boo with some.

Being born and raised LDS, the persecution of Joseph Smith is a given for me. I was a bit surprised in the other thread to read that this was questioned as far as the first vision is concerned. My idea was that, given the extensive nature of the persecution as related in JS-History, there would be plenty of contemporary references to it.

It would appear that I was wrong, because (1) I cannot find any such references (which doesn't mean much) and (2) most other posters here seem to think there is none and offer a variety of speculations why this would be so. All I can say is that I'm surprised at this, but I am perfectly willing to ascribe that to my lack of understanding of how these things worked in 1820 upstate New York. Now all I can do is hope for someone to explain how all the sects could have combined to excite the public mind against Joseph Smith without leaving a trace of the public exciting. I would have thought that an excited general public is at least worth a mention or two in some local rag.

[ELF1024]

Being born and raised LDS, the persecution of Joseph Smith is a given for me. I was a bit surprised in the other thread to read that this was questioned as far as the first vision is concerned. My idea was that, given the extensive nature of the persecution as related in JS-History, there would be plenty of contemporary references to it.

It would appear that I was wrong, because (1) I cannot find any such references (which doesn't mean much) and (2) most other posters here seem to think there is none and offer a variety of speculations why this would be so. All I can say is that I'm surprised at this, but I am perfectly willing to ascribe that to my lack of understanding of how these things worked in 1820 upstate New York. Now all I can do is hope for someone to explain how all the sects could have combined to excite the public mind against Joseph Smith without leaving a trace of the public exciting. I would have thought that an excited general public is at least worth a mention or two in some local rag.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.

[LeSellers]

I think Lehi nailed it...

Personally I think all the fuss is just an excuse to call the Prophet Joseph Smith a liar, by those who despise him even to this day!

Wish I'd said it, but it was "Lightbearer".

Does anyone else routinely run out of Rep Points several times a week? Frustrating, I must say.

Lehi

Edited June 2, 2011 by LeSellers

[ELF1024]

Wish I'd said it, but it was "Lightbearer".

Does anyone else routinely run out of Rep Points several times a week? Frustrating, I must say.

Lehi

Whoops! Fixed... (and yes I run out of rep points a couple of times a week too)

[cinepro]

Being born and raised LDS, the persecution of Joseph Smith is a given for me. I was a bit surprised in the other thread to read that this was questioned as far as the first vision is concerned. My idea was that, given the extensive nature of the persecution as related in JS-History, there would be plenty of contemporary references to it.

It would appear that I was wrong, because (1) I cannot find any such references (which doesn't mean much) and (2) most other posters here seem to think there is none and offer a variety of speculations why this would be so. All I can say is that I'm surprised at this, but I am perfectly willing to ascribe that to my lack of understanding of how these things worked in 1820 upstate New York. Now all I can do is hope for someone to explain how all the sects could have combined to excite the public mind against Joseph Smith without leaving a trace of the public exciting. I would have thought that an excited general public is at least worth a mention or two in some local rag.

For completeness, I'll repost what I posted in the other thread:

This line from Lucy Smith's history of Joseph (admittedly written after his death in the 1840s):

From this time until the twenty-first of September, 1823, Joseph continued, as usual, to labor with his father, and nothing during this interval occurred of very great importance—though he suffered every kind of opposition and persecution from the different orders of religionists.

It is a statement (granted, long after the fact) from someone who would have known. It's possible Joseph was living in peace at the time and her recollection was entirely colored by Joseph's statement in 1838, but it's also possible that she simply remembered those years being difficult for Joseph.

Certainly, I have vivid memories of the times my children have had a tough time with peers at school, and 25 years from now I have no doubt I will still recall how my daughter had problems with bullies in the 5th grade. It's the kind of thing a parent tends not to forget.

And to be fair, if she hadn't mentioned it, the critics would be all over it like stink on a monkey.

So it is what it is.

Edited June 2, 2011 by cinepro

[cinepro]

Rob, if I told some Christians that I saw God face to face, how long do you think it would take for the to persecute and make fun, labeling me mentally disturbed (well not much of a stretch there) or an idiot? The only evidence we need is to look to our own day, this very day and moment.

This is where our critics fail, they cannot give on one simple point…ever! If they did to them it would somehow justify Mormonism, or they would be ostracized by their peers, which brings us back to the same point. So yes JS was persecuted for saying that he had indeed seen a vision. This is just a no brainer.

Heck, you don't even have to tell "some Christians". What do you think would happen if a 14-year-old LDS boy claimed to have prayed to know whether the Church were true and was visited by God the Father, Jesus Christ, and Heavenly Mother and was told that none of the Churches on the Earth were "true", and that their Articles of Faith were an abomination unto Him (especially when 12 year olds are forced to recite them in front of the congregation).

Obviously, he would be nicely told to keep his mouth shut and keep praying to know that the CoJCoLdS is true. But what if he didn't keep his mouth shut and kept telling people and insisting it happened?

"Persecution" isn't a sign of truth. It's a sign of telling someone that God told you their Church wasn't true.

Edited June 2, 2011 by cinepro

[Rob Bowman]

Lightbearer,

You wrote:

Why should there be documentation other than the 1838 account? In fact Joseph did not even record the vision (in 1820) until some time later.

That fact doesn't help your case any.

You wrote:

Of course the varying accounts indicate the audience and their needs which were emphasized. It is interesting that the 1838 would mention persecution, because at that time persecution was utmost in the Prophet's mind (Bogg's extermination order and the Kirtland persecutions were very fresh in his mind.)

This would make sense, assuming the 1820 persecution really took place. On the other hand, it can be taken as a decent argument for concluding that Joseph's claim in 1838 of persecution in 1820 was part of a tall tale.

You wrote:

Why should he tell of an obscure "christian" minister's verbal persections when the visitation of the Father and Son were the most important points not the fallout caused by Satan and his followers. Of course it would not even be a footnote in a newspaper and it is doubtful he told anyone about the good "reverend's" vindictive response until much later when the official account was being recorded for addtion into the canon. I can recall being persecuted in a baptist private school in the 8th grade in 1971 but do you think I have any "evidence" or documented proof? Was it published in the paper? NO it is my word only, so just because it was not recorded until then, does not mean it never happened. We did not have a you-tube or a facebook or a message board to post it on. Does that make it any less true or hurtful?

As has been pointed out, Joseph went far beyond claiming that one minister criticized him. Joseph claimed:

"I soon found, however, 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, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me. It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself" (JS-H 1:22-23).

According to this account, "men of high standing," "the great ones of the most popular sects of the day," excited "the public mind against" Joseph, so much so that all of the denominations "united to persecute" him. This isn't describing scuffles in the school yard with a handful of mean kids picking on the Mormon. What Joseph describes should have left some historical mark, some imprint, that would be recoverable. After all, there are stacks and stacks of extant statements from Joseph Smith's contemporaries, including many, many people who disliked Joseph and rejected his religion. Yet none of them have anything to say about Joseph claiming to have seen the Father and the Son as a teenage boy. These contemporaries were not shy about criticizing and even ridiculing Joseph on all sorts of other issues, but they don't mention this one. That doesn't fit with Joseph's account in JS-H 1:22-23.

You wrote:

For that matter does the apostle Paul have any "evidence" other than his own writings that he saw a vision on the road to Damascus or that he was persecuted for it?

I've already addressed this analogy and shown why it doesn't hold up. Paul's admission of his own persecution of Christians prior to seeing the risen Christ was universally accepted in the early church and stands as historical fact in the view of almost all historians, even those who think Paul was mistaken in believing that he had truly seen Christ.

You wrote:

I despise all these so-called little "scholars" who try to re-write Mormon history with an Anti-Mormon slant! Let them believe what they want, but on judgment day we will all have to give an account of what was written and said... Personally I think all the fuss is just an excuse to call the Prophet Joseph Smith a liar, by those who despise him even to this day!

Why not simply say directly to me that you despise me, since this is clearly your point? And perhaps you'd like to give me your name, so I can know what a "big scholar" you are. I have a lot of respect for honest Mormons who don't claim to know more than they really do, who have their sincerely held views but can acknowledge that others might disagree. I have a hard time respecting people of any religion, or none, who hide behind pseudonyms while attacking the scholarship of those who put their name on the line.