Was Joseph Smith Persecuted For Sharing The First Vision

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

Regarding evidence for persecution of Joseph Smith due to the First Vision, you wrote:

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.

This is an interesting citation. There is apparently no extant source that comes directly from "Mrs. Palmer," and so far I have not been able to determine her first name or anything else about her. The statements attributed to her above come from something called "Stories from the Notebook of Martha Cox, Grandmother of Fern Cox Anderson," a document reportedly kept in the Church Historian's Office. The publication of the quotation from Mrs. Palmer, then, comes from Martha Cox. Who was Martha Cox? She was a Mormon lady, Martha Cragun Cox, born in 1853 and died in 1932. The notebook apparently was produced in 1928, or at least Mrs. Cox's autobiography (it isn't clear if these are one and the same). See the essay about her by LDS historian Lavina Fielding Anderson for what little details seem to be available. The full text of the statement attributed to Mrs. Palmer may be found here. It does not appear to come from The Saints' Herald.

As best I can determine, this statement comes secondhand from a seventy-five year old Mormon lady writing more than a century after Joseph's alleged first vision in 1820. I am open to correction on these facts, but if they are correct, I don't see how this is likely to be good evidence for Joseph supposedly being persecuted by non-Mormons over the First Vision between 1820 and 1823.

[bookofmormontruth]

Lehi,

Regarding evidence for persecution of Joseph Smith due to the First Vision, you wrote:

This is an interesting citation. There is apparently no extant source that comes directly from "Mrs. Palmer," and so far I have not been able to determine her first name or anything else about her. The statements attributed to her above come from something called "Stories from the Notebook of Martha Cox, Grandmother of Fern Cox Anderson," a document reportedly kept in the Church Historian's Office. The publication of the quotation from Mrs. Palmer, then, comes from Martha Cox. Who was Martha Cox? She was a Mormon lady, Martha Cragun Cox, born in 1853 and died in 1932. The notebook apparently was produced in 1928, or at least Mrs. Cox's autobiography (it isn't clear if these are one and the same). See the essay about her by LDS historian Lavina Fielding Anderson for what little details seem to be available. The full text of the statement attributed to Mrs. Palmer may be found here. It does not appear to come from The Saints' Herald.

As best I can determine, this statement comes secondhand from a seventy-five year old Mormon lady writing more than a century after Joseph's alleged first vision in 1820. I am open to correction on these facts, but if they are correct, I don't see how this is likely to be good evidence for Joseph supposedly being persecuted by non-Mormons over the First Vision between 1820 and 1823.

What do you mean by "interesting citation" and not "good evidence"? Because it came from the Church archives or that it wasn't a direct source?

[David T]

What do you mean by "interesting citation" and not "good evidence"? Because it came from the Church archives or that it wasn't a direct source?

I think he meant this part:

" this statement comes secondhand from a seventy-five year old Mormon lady writing more than a century after Joseph's alleged first vision in 1820. "

[bookofmormontruth]

I think he meant this part:

" this statement comes secondhand from a seventy-five year old Mormon lady writing more than a century after Joseph's alleged first vision in 1820. "

Yes, he did state that, but I am specifically asking if "interesting citation" and not "good evidence" is in reference to Church archives and not being a direct source which were also mentioned.

Or maybe I can rephrase my question into two questions:

Does sources that come directly from "Church archives" account for anything? And if so, what? Not "good evidence"?

Does sources that don't come from a direct source account for anything? And if so, what? Not "good evidence"

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

You've got to be kidding.

Anyone should be able to see that my point had nothing to do with casting suspicion on a source because it was in the LDS Church archives. The problem is that the account is secondhand (hearsay), we have no information at all about when, where, and how the statement was made, we don't even have adequate information about the identity of the person who supposedly made the statement, and the written account of the statement dates from more than a hundred years later (in the context of a highly literate culture). All of this taken together raises serious doubts about the worth of this statement as evidence for events in the early 1820s.

Yes, he did state that, but I am specifically asking if "interesting citation" and not "good evidence" is in reference to Church archives and not being a direct source which were also mentioned.

Or maybe I can rephrase my question into two questions:

Does sources that come directly from "Church archives" account for anything? And if so, what? Not "good evidence"?

Does sources that don't come from a direct source account for anything? And if so, what? Not "good evidence"

[bookofmormontruth]

BOMT,

You've got to be kidding.

Anyone should be able to see that my point had nothing to do with casting suspicion on a source because it was in the LDS Church archives. The problem is that the account is secondhand (hearsay), we have no information at all about when, where, and how the statement was made, we don't even have adequate information about the identity of the person who supposedly made the statement, and the written account of the statement dates from more than a hundred years later (in the context of a highly literate culture). All of this taken together raises serious doubts about the worth of this statement as evidence for events in the early 1820s.

Let me see if I am understanding you correctly.

LDS Church archived sources are acceptable, but secondhand (hearsay) sources raises serious doubts about their worth?

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

You wrote:

Let me see if I am understanding you correctly.

LDS Church archived sources are acceptable, but secondhand (hearsay) sources raises serious doubts about their worth?

You've only got part of the picture, apparently. I think I've been very clear.

[bookofmormontruth]

BOMT,

You wrote:

You've only got part of the picture, apparently. I think I've been very clear.

And the other part of the picture is?

I ask because posts 23, 87, 115 and 145 have not been addressed, at all. If they are not good enough sources then why aren't they? Or are they good enough sources to answer the OP? It is one or the other. Very simple.

[wcdrotar]

Rob Bowman you forgot posts 23, 87, 115, and 145. Please make sure to address those. They haven't been addressed, at all. This is important.

[wcdrotar]

Rob Bowman you forgot posts 23, 87, 115, and 145. Please make sure to address those. They haven't been addressed, at all. This is important.

[cdowis]

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

Tell him to watch TBN (trinity broadcasting). He will find many evangels who make that claim.

[Rob Bowman]

wcdrotar,

You wrote:

Rob Bowman you forgot posts 23, 87, 115, and 145. Please make sure to address those. They haven't been addressed, at all. This is important.

And BOMT wrote:

I ask because posts 23, 87, 115 and 145 have not been addressed, at all.

You guys aren't serious. Post #23 has been addressed (see posts #118, 121, 145, 148, 149, 151, 153, 154, 156). Posts #87, #115, and #145, dealing with Lucy Mack Smith's statements, have also been discussed (see #118, 121, 144, 145, 152, 157). You may not agree with the responses, but it is false to claim they have not even been addressed.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

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 think Joseph learned from experience not to cast pearls before swine. Meaning, don' take that which is most sacred and tell it all about town. It only invites persecution.

He learned to be selective--and for good reason.

[bookofmormontruth]

Anyone should be able to see that my point had nothing to do with casting suspicion on a source because it was in the LDS Church archives. The problem is that the account is secondhand (hearsay), we have no information at all about when, where, and how the statement was made, we don't even have adequate information about the identity of the person who supposedly made the statement, and the written account of the statement dates from more than a hundred years later (in the context of a highly literate culture). All of this taken together raises serious doubts about the worth of this statement as evidence for events in the early 1820s.

You guys aren't serious. Post #23 has been addressed (see posts #118, 121, 145, 148, 149, 151, 153, 154, 156). Posts #87, #115, and #145, dealing with Lucy Mack Smith's statements, have also been discussed (see #118, 121, 144, 145, 152, 157). You may not agree with the responses, but it is false to claim they have not even been addressed.

Ah, I see now.

When making an argument in opposition of Joseph Smith, it is okay to use these secondhand (hearsay) sources to prove your point. As the following show from Rob's own website.

Did the Young Joseph Smith Study the Bible? Robert M. Bowman, Jr. My link . Notice how Lucy Mack Smith's accounts and statements are being used as a source with this description in the article: "(quoting from Lucy‟s original draft). The later published version is essentially identical". So which is it?

My link Here we have an article on Rob's website using countless examples of "second-hand" sources and my favorite source from this article: "Edward Ashment, unpublished article on file, Institute for Religious Research, Appendix A, p. 2.

Yet somehow a source from LDS Church archives is untrustworthy? Interesting....I guess using this "First draft of Lucy Smith's History, p. 55, LDS Church Archives" source was okay to use in another article of Rob's website. My link

My link Here we have others examples that Rob would agree are second hand (hearsay) sources. And what do we remember what Rob said about second hand sources? "secondhand (hearsay) sources raises serious doubts about their worth", but in this same article it states this: "The diaries contain much historical data".

Interesting, so which is it? Serious doubts about their worth or historical data?

Apparently, even tertiary sources are okay on Rob's website as found in this article: (Mr Wood on Joseph Smith through Martin Harris).

"Martin was something of a prophet: — He frequently said that "Jackson would be the last president that we would have; and that all persons who did not embrace Mormonism in two years would be stricken off the face of the earth.: He said that Palmyra was to be the New Jerusalem, and that her streets were to be paved with gold. Martin was in the office when I finished setting up the testimony of the three witnesses, — (Harris — Cowdery and Whitmer) I said to him, — "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?" Martin looked down for an instant, raise his eyes up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.' (Wilford C. Wood, Joseph Smith Begins His Work, Vol. 1, 1958, introduction. This is a photomechanical reprint of the first edition [1830] of the Book of Mormon. It also contains biographical and historical information relating to the Book of Mormon."My link

Remember Rob having an issue with my source from a Church DVD? My link. But Rob has absolutely no problems having a source from a "video-cassette" as found in another article on his website: My link "Videocassette 1 - The Three Witnesses, produced by Brigham Young University".

These are countless on Rob's website, but rest assured you can actually purchase these type of sources here: My link

But when there is an argument in support of Joseph Smith, it isn't okay to use any of these type of sources. They are conveniently ignored.

What do we call this? Anyone, anyone .............?

Edited June 19, 2011 by bookofmormontruth

[Ariarates]

What do we call this? Anyone, anyone .............?

Uhh, whining?

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

You wrote:

Ah, I see now. When making an argument in opposition of Joseph Smith, it is okay to use these secondhand (hearsay) sources to prove your point.... But when there is an argument in support of Joseph Smith, it isn't okay to use any of these type of sources. They are conveniently ignored.

What do we call this? Anyone, anyone .............?

Too bad you don't actually think through the arguments presented in the IRR articles you cited, instead of simply scanning them for out-of-context references to support your preconceived point.

You don't seem to understand, or care about, the argument I presented. There is nothing wrong with secondhand information per se. For example, Luke's two books in the NT are "secondhand" in the sense that they are written by someone who was not an eyewitness (except in the "we" passages in Acts). The problem with the "Mrs. Palmer" story is manifold, not the single issue of being secondhand. (1) We don't know who Mrs. Palmer is. (2) We don't know how Mrs. Cox knew Mrs. Palmer, when they knew each other, or how, where, when, or why Mrs. Palmer gave Mrs. Cox her statement. (3) Mrs. Cox evidently included Mrs. Palmer's statement in a book dated in 1928, more than a century after the supposed First Vision. What we are discussing here is whether there is any good evidence that Joseph Smith was persecuted between 1820 and 1823 because of his First Vision story. A story of nebulous origins written down in 1928 is simply not good evidence.

[bookofmormontruth]

BOMT,

You wrote:

Too bad you don't actually think through the arguments presented in the IRR articles you cited, instead of simply scanning them for out-of-context references to support your preconceived point.

You don't seem to understand, or care about, the argument I presented. There is nothing wrong with secondhand information per se. For example, Luke's two books in the NT are "secondhand" in the sense that they are written by someone who was not an eyewitness (except in the "we" passages in Acts). The problem with the "Mrs. Palmer" story is manifold, not the single issue of being secondhand. (1) We don't know who Mrs. Palmer is. (2) We don't know how Mrs. Cox knew Mrs. Palmer, when they knew each other, or how, where, when, or why Mrs. Palmer gave Mrs. Cox her statement. (3) Mrs. Cox evidently included Mrs. Palmer's statement in a book dated in 1928, more than a century after the supposed First Vision. What we are discussing here is whether there is any good evidence that Joseph Smith was persecuted between 1820 and 1823 because of his First Vision story. A story of nebulous origins written down in 1928 is simply not good evidence.

I read them all Rob, too bad you are projecting what you exactly do with LDS sources to prove your desperate arguments. But you are correct, I don't care what some EV who makes a living off attacking a prophet of G-d. Hopefully you have a little time to actually bring people closer to the One that you profess to follow?

Bottom line: you are now flip flopping back and forth as usual. As you stated before (which the world can read), you have serious issues with the sources (Lucy Mack Smith etc..), yet now of course, there is nothing wrong with secondhand sources unless they support the Lord's Church and Joseph Smith as in the case of this very topic (you are rejecting the several sources because they don't fit your argument).

Hate to break the news Rob the chameleon, but we know your real colors.

[Vance]

Uhh, whining?

Yup, Bowman does that sometimes.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

"The world can read" what I said, all right, but you seem incapable of understanding what I said fairly or accurately.

How about your repeated, false claim that several posts providing evidence for Joseph's pre-1823 persecution were never addressed? I gave you a list of posts that discussed the ones you claim were never addressed. Were you able to read those and see that your claim was false? How about showing a little honesty and admit that you were wrong in making that claim?

While we're talking about credibility, how about giving us your real name and telling us where you work, showing the same willingness to be held accountable for what you say that I show every day?

I read them all Rob, too bad you are projecting what you exactly do with LDS sources to prove your desperate arguments. But you are correct, I don't care what some EV who makes a living off attacking a prophet of G-d. Hopefully you have a little time to actually bring people closer to the One that you profess to follow?

Bottom line: you are now flip flopping back and forth as usual. As you stated before (which the world can read), you have serious issues with the sources (Lucy Mack Smith etc..), yet now of course, there is nothing wrong with secondhand sources unless they support the Lord's Church and Joseph Smith as in the case of this very topic (you are rejecting the several sources because they don't fit your argument).

Hate to break the news Rob the chameleon, but we know your real colors.

[bookofmormontruth]

BOMT,

"The world can read" what I said, all right, but you seem incapable of understanding what I said fairly or accurately.

How about your repeated, false claim that several posts providing evidence for Joseph's pre-1823 persecution were never addressed? I gave you a list of posts that discussed the ones you claim were never addressed. Were you able to read those and see that your claim was false? How about showing a little honesty and admit that you were wrong in making that claim?

While we're talking about credibility, how about giving us your real name and telling us where you work, showing the same willingness to be held accountable for what you say that I show every day?

It was creepy enough that you started to send me private messages, now you want my "real name" and "where I work" like I am someone important? What is next? A private investigator to hunt me (a very average day LDS member who leaves the apologetics to the real experts) down to prove what? I am nothing Rob, get over me.

But please do correct us in what you said then. Like all your answers, they remain vague on purpose - just like that chameleon.

Let's make it simple (not randomly listing multiple posts) for you and address this source which answers and fulfills the OP:

During this time (1826 - My link) we were frequently visited by my young friend, Joseph Smith, who would entertain us with accounts of the wonderful things which had happened to him. It was evident to me that great things were about to be accomplished through him--that the Lord was about to use him as an instrument in His hands to bring to pass the great and mighty work of the last days. This chosen instrument told us of God's manifestations to him, of the discovery and receiving of the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, of his persecutions for the gospel's sake, and many other items of his eventful life.

So honest and plain were all his statements that there was no room for any misgivings with me on the subject. Besides, I found by reading and searching the Bible, that there would be a great falling away from the gospel as preached and established by Jesus and His apostles, that in the last days God would set His hand again to restore that which was lost. Then why should anyone persecute this boy? I could not. Yet, to my certain knowledge, many did; and those who professed to be preacher's of the gospel, were often his vilest persecutors; (SOUNDS LIKE TODAY!) and notwithstanding they all professed to doubt the reality of his having the plates of which be had spoken, yet so eager were they to get them from him, that it was only by the Lord, or a kind angel, warning him from time to time of the pursuit of his enemies, that he was enabled to preserve the sacred records. In fact, it seemed very much like it was with Joseph and Mary, the mother of Jesus, being warned of God to flee from place to place, to save the young child; so has Joseph Smith been warned many times, and then barely escaped his pursuers. Of this I can bear a faithful testimony My link

And since you brought up credibility.

How about you check out my poll that lasted an entire 15 minutes and see that just in that short of time - what credibility you really think you have. My link

[Nemesis]

I don't see how four people voting constitutes a good sampling especially of this board. So lets stop the personal attacks and focus on the message.

Nemesis

[bookofmormontruth]

For the record.

I am not trying to make Rob Bowman out as a "bad guy" per se. Like I have said previously, I would probably have him over for a BBQ and get along with him in person. I mean no harm to him and I like him, just don't like his line of work and how he is trying to represent our sacred faith.

I am only pointing out credibility in regards to the LDS faith.

Credibility refers to the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message.

Traditionally, credibility has two key components: trustworthiness and expertise, which both have objective and subjective components. Trustworthiness is based more on subjective factors, but can include objective measurements such as established reliability. Expertise can be similarly subjectively perceived, but also includes relatively objective characteristics of the source or message (e.g., credentials, certification or information quality).

It is safe to say that Rob has no "expertise" in the LDS faith and therefore fails one of the components of credibility.

There is no such label of "expert" outside of the Lord's Church because being an "expert" of the LDS faith requires a personal testimony and faith, not just "fact based knowledge". In addition, Rob's website (IRR) and questionable statements (on MD&DB) fails the "established reliability" in numerous ways that have been pointed out and fails the last component of credibility.

Therefore, Rob Bowman and his website have no credibility within the LDS community (high credibility in the EV community, mind you) which was the topic of my short limited poll (5 people actually voted, not 4).

Now questioning Rob's sincerity and motivations, I am guilty of. This does constitute a personal attack and so I apologize publicly. I should keep my opinions to myself no matter how much I believe in them.

I hope that makes some sense and I eagerly await a response (in regards to the OP) and hope on Rob's end that he sees the errors of his ways and in the least changes his tactics to restore his credibility. Or better yet, forget any tactic and show respect (especially towards the Temple), love and brotherly kindness to those who he considers "lost" and who don't have a "true" relationship with the Savior of the world.

For if there is one LDS faithful (reading this) who feels they have come closer to the Savior because of Rob Bowman's words and website (IRR) then I will take everything I have said back and close up shop permanently.

Edited June 20, 2011 by bookofmormontruth

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

I am going to ignore completely your absurd accusations and personal complaints and respond to the one piece of evidence you attempted to provide pertinent to the topic of this thread. This was a quotation from Newell Knight's autobiography:

During this time we were frequently visited by my young friend, Joseph Smith, who would entertain us with accounts of the wonderful things which had happened to him. It was evident to me that great things were about to be accomplished through him--that the Lord was about to use him as an instrument in His hands to bring to pass the great and mighty work of the last days. This chosen instrument told us of God's manifestations to him, of the discovery and receiving of the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, of his persecutions for the gospel's sake, and many other items of his eventful life.

So honest and plain were all his statements that there was no room for any misgivings with me on the subject. Besides, I found by reading and searching the Bible, that there would be a great falling away from the gospel as preached and established by Jesus and His apostles, that in the last days God would set His hand again to restore that which was lost. Then why should anyone persecute this boy? I could not. Yet, to my certain knowledge, many did; and those who professed to be preacher's of the gospel, were often his vilest persecutors; and notwithstanding they all professed to doubt the reality of his having the plates of which be had spoken, yet so eager were they to get them from him, that it was only by the Lord, or a kind angel, warning him from time to time of the pursuit of his enemies, that he was enabled to preserve the sacred records.

First of all, by your own acknowledgment, Knight met Joseph Smith no earlier than 1826, and what he says Joseph told him could not have been told to him before late 1827. For example, Knight says that Joseph told him "of the discovery and receiving of the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated." Since Joseph claimed to have received the plates in late September 1827, the conversations to which Knight refers here cannot have taken place prior to that time.

Second, Knight mentions Joseph's persecutions "for the gospel's sake" immediately following his reference to the discovery, receiving, and translating of the Book of Mormon plates. This at least suggests that the persecutions took place after Joseph began telling people that he had the plates. Knight also says that the people who persecuted Joseph also tried to get the plates away from him. This statement even more clearly connects the persecution of Joseph to his possession of the plates. Nothing in this account by Knight suggests that Joseph was being persecuted for a First Vision story.

I conclude, then, that Knight's account provides no evidence for Joseph Smith being persecuted between 1820 and 1823.

[bookofmormontruth]

BOMT,

I am going to ignore completely your absurd accusations and personal complaints and respond to the one piece of evidence you attempted to provide pertinent to the topic of this thread. This was a quotation from Newell Knight's autobiography:

First of all, by your own acknowledgment, Knight met Joseph Smith no earlier than 1826, and what he says Joseph told him could not have been told to him before late 1827. For example, Knight says that Joseph told him "of the discovery and receiving of the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated." Since Joseph claimed to have received the plates in late September 1827, the conversations to which Knight refers here cannot have taken place prior to that time.

Second, Knight mentions Joseph's persecutions "for the gospel's sake" immediately following his reference to the discovery, receiving, and translating of the Book of Mormon plates. This at least suggests that the persecutions took place after Joseph began telling people that he had the plates. Knight also says that the people who persecuted Joseph also tried to get the plates away from him. This statement even more clearly connects the persecution of Joseph to his possession of the plates. Nothing in this account by Knight suggests that Joseph was being persecuted for a First Vision story.

I conclude, then, that Knight's account provides no evidence for Joseph Smith being persecuted between 1820 and 1823.

What? You don't like BBQs? You are no fun.

Please tell us where the OP states that the persecution has to be between 1820 and 1823? Or is this the familiar tactic, to change the argument to fit your agenda? Of course it is. For in post # 2 you stated: "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". Which is it? Prior to 1827 or between 1820 and 1823?

So we see the ever changing and shape shifting abilities of Rob Bowman. Next, the goal posts will be changed to 1805-1806.

Now back to Newell Knight's quote. You are taking parts of the entire quote to fit your argument. That tactic isn't going to work around these parts, sorry Rob.

Let's analyze the entire quote in its context. Newell was writing his biography years later and recollecting his accounts with Joseph Smith.

During this time(1826).

This is when Joseph Smith was acquainted with the Knights. Your argument is that Joseph Smith didn't tell Newell anything about his life (1st Vision etc) until late 1827 when Joseph received the plates. A year and half later of silence from Joseph Smith?

Not according to Joseph Smith: "During the space of time which intervened between the time I had the vision and the year eighteen hundred and twenty-three—having been forbidden to join any of the religious sects of the day, and being of very tender years, and persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends. Owing to my continuing to assert that I had seen a vision, persecution still followed me" JSH 1:28, 58.

Joseph Smith continued to state to people that he experienced the 1st Vision and he continued to experience persecution in the 1820s because of it. Yet, you are claiming he was silent with Newell Knight for over a year and half.

we were frequently visited by my young friend, Joseph Smith, who would entertain us with accounts of the wonderful things which had happened to him.

Notice the word "happened". This was before 1826 which was The first vision and Moroni's appearances and not in reference to having the plates.

It was evident to me that great things were about to be accomplished through him--that the Lord was about to use him as an instrument in His hands to bring to pass the great and mighty work of the last days.

Notice "were about to accomplished". And notice a "great and might work" which as a non-expert you wouldn't know that this is in reference to the Book of Mormon and establishing the Lord's Church.

This chosen instrument told us of God's manifestations to him,

Wait? Did you even read this part? "This chosen instrument told us of God's manifestations to him". This is the 1st vision where God manifested Himself to Joseph Smith. Blows your argument out of the water!

of the discovery and receiving of the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, of his persecutions for the gospel's sake, and many other items of his eventful life.

As you can see, Newell is writing this years later with starting the account in 1826 and then recounting "the discovery" (1823 and later on which is before the possession of plates) and "receiving" the plates in 1827.

So honest and plain were all his statements that there was no room for any misgivings with me on the subject. Besides, I found by reading and searching the Bible, that there would be a great falling away from the gospel as preached and established by Jesus and His apostles, that in the last days God would set His hand again to restore that which was lost. Then why should anyone persecute this boy? I could not. Yet, to my certain knowledge, many did; and those who professed to be preacher's of the gospel, were often his vilest persecutors; and notwithstanding they all professed to doubt the reality of his having the plates of which be had spoken, yet so eager were they to get them from him, that it was only by the Lord, or a kind angel, warning him from time to time of the pursuit of his enemies, that he was enabled to preserve the sacred records

Now, finally Newell is talking about the persecution of Joseph Smith for receiving the plates and follows up with more accounts of the plates in the next chapter. My link.

Also notice: "those who professed to be preacher's of the gospel, were often his vilest persecutors;". Does that sound intimately familiar?

The OP remains answered and fulfilled. Unless of course the facts are ignored.

[Kevin Christensen]

Thus far, everyone has ignored two important discussions, which survey many important sources. First Richard L. Anderson's 1969 BYU Studies essay on

"Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision through Reminiscences"

http://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/9.3Anderson.pdf

Pomeroy Tucker also verifies the circumstances of the First Vision, all

the more important because his main support is unintended. Assuming

1827 as the beginning of Joseph Smith’s revelations, the editor relates the

“remarkable vision” that came “about this time” in response to the youth’s

prayer “in the wilderness.” The words of this experience are generally

placed in quotation marks, and the phrases are borrowed in sequence from

Orson Pratt’s pamphlet, Remarkable Visions.36 Tucker depends verbally on

this written source, although he seems to have some memory of what

young Joseph Smith said about the First Vision while still in Palmyra. But

in Tucker’s first chapter, where Mormon writings are not in evidence and

the editor’s personal reminiscences are heavily concentrated, the following

description of the early religious life of the Prophet is given:

Protracted revival meetings were customary in some of the churches,

and Smith frequented those of different denominations, sometimes professing

to participate in their devotional exercises. At one time he joined the probationary

class of the Methodist Church in Palmyra, and made some active

demonstrations of engagedness, though his assumed convictions were insufficiently

grounded or abiding to carry him along to the saving point of conversion,

and he soon withdrew from the class. The final conclusion

announced by him was, that all sectarianism was fallacious, all the churches

on a false foundation, and the Bible a fable.37

No other source is this particular in identifying young Joseph Smith as

a member of the Methodist “probationary class.” Since Tucker immediately

follows with a reference to “all the early avowals and other evidences

remembered,” he seems to be saying that he has firsthand knowledge of

Joseph’s temporary religious affiliation and reason for its abrupt termination:

he publicly “announced . . . that all sectarianism was fallacious. . . .”

A study of Turner requires a date of about 1820 for this tentative Methodist

association, and Tucker emphasizes that “he soon withdrew from the

class,” a specific description that explains Turner’s metaphor, “a spark of

Methodism.” This evidence indicates that about 1820 Joseph Smith was

openly expressing the identical convictions that he later maintained came

at that early time through the First Vision. Since such negative attitudes

could have only brought scorn upon him, it is unlikely that a fourteenyear-

old boy would take this extreme position without some religious

experience to solidify his personal convictions.

Anderson also notices this:

Pomeroy Tucker portrays Joseph as a young man of unusual “taciturnity,” speaking mainly to “his intimate associates”

and generally ridiculed because he could relate a “marvelous absurdity

with the utmost apparent gravity.”39 Is this the community response to

8 BYU Studies

Joseph’s limited narration of his vision? The Palmyra editor has his own

evolutionary theory of the young Prophet advancing from reading

worthless fiction to serious study of the Bible. In fact, as a student of the

Scriptures, he became so capable that he could discuss texts “with great

assurance,” and with “original and unique” interpretations. What all this

proved to Tucker is highly instructive. Joseph Smith came to “disgustingly

blasphemous” conclusions which, coupled with his religious investigation

and announcement that he would join no sect, disclosed that he and his

family “were unqualified atheists,” an inevitable “hypothesis” based on

“their mockeries of Christianity.”40

Tucker’s reasoning shows that most epithets applied to the Smiths may

well be grounded in their religious dissent. If he can equate unorthodoxy

with atheism, then the historian knows that he is dealing with a rigid social

structure whose labels on nonconformity cannot be taken at face value.

He also discusses Lucy Mack Smith's incorporation of Joseph's official account in her book.

That crude ridicule filled Palmyra after the death of Alvin

is historical fact. Joseph Smith, Sr., became so exasperated that he purchased

space in the Wayne Sentinel for six weeks beginning September 29,

1824, to refute gossip that Alvin’s body had been exhumed and dissected.

He added his candid judgment that the originators of such stories “have

been stimulated more by a desire to injure the reputation of certain persons

than a philanthropy for the peace and welfare of myself and friends.”66 The

Prophet’s history claims that public contempt was heaped upon his head

because he told of his First Vision, and social scorn of his family is an

established reality by the fall of 1824. As to the cause of such ridicule, some

have suggested the Smiths’ supposed money-digging activities, but that is

speculation Lucy Smith specifically comments on the period after the 1820

First Vision:

From this time until the twenty-first of September, 1823, Joseph continued,

as usual, to labour with his father . . . though he suffered, as one would

naturally suppose, every kind of opposition and persecution from the different

orders of religion.67

Since this interpretive comment is added directly after the quoted portions

of the First Vision, the author is alleging a natural relationship between the

greatness of the new revelation and the shocked reaction of the orthodox

Because of Lucy Mack Smith’s historical orientation, the story of the First

Vision is told in the words of her son, but her personal observations verify

the specific chronology and surrounding circumstances that he claimed for

the experience.68

Anderson also cites a blessing given by Joseph Smith Senior:

The opening words of Joseph Smith, Sr., summarized

the spiritual career of the twenty-eight-year-old Joseph Smith, Jr., as

then accepted by those who knew him most intimately:

The Lord thy God has called thee by name out of the heavens; thou hast

heard his voice from on high from time to time, even in thy youth.91

In a series of revelations given “from time to time,” the initial experience

mentioned is not the coming of an angel, but an incident in which the

youth is addressed personally by God from the heavens.92 Thus the patriarch

spontaneously gives the same sequence for the First Vision as found in

the writings of his wife and prophet-son.

Joseph's Father and Mother were quite well placed to observe an evolution in Joseph's accounts. And they were both well situated to recognize the personal costs in their lives.

Nibley's essay on "Censoring the Joseph Smith Story" is still very helpful reading, when included with more recent studies by Bushman, Quinn, Anderson, and others, such as the essays in Opening the Heavens.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=52

This essay discusses a visible reluctance on the part of Joseph's critics to let him tell his own story, and the consequent garblings that involve blending details of the First Vision with the later visits of the angel.

For instance:

Yet according to the same Majors, Joseph Smith's story anticipated Rigdon's by a good two years, for in 1830

five Mormon elders made their appearance in the county and commenced preaching, stating…that they were chosen by the priesthood which had been organized by the Prophet Joseph Smith, who had met an angel and received a revelation from God. In that day and age it was regarded as blasphemous or sacrilegious for anyone to claim that they had met angels and received from them new revelations, and the religious portion of the community, especially, was very much incensed and aroused at the audacity of any person claiming such interviews from the invisible world.74

From this it would appear that at an early date people were much angered and excited by Joseph Smith's claims to heavenly visitations; note that a distinction is made between the angel's visit and "a revelation (i.e., a particular revelation) from God."

Recall again that Bushman has observed that in many ways Joseph Smith's 1832 account is a typical conversion theophany, and that the resistance to his vision was also quite typical. Why is it so hard to believe that Joseph had a typical experience, and subsequently experienced the typical resistance to such experiences? It's all quite routine, hardly news. So why complain that the papers did not report it. While the conversion theophany was typical, the angel was not, and only from that point does Joseph Smith stand out as someone making extraordinary claims.

The Bible is very clear and helpful in describing how to approach such claims.

http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/prophettestsfv5.pdf

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA