Was Joseph Smith Persecuted For Sharing The First Vision

[Ariarates]

I still follow this thread because I started it but there´s a lot of running around in circles. Still, I liked Kevin´s comment because it reflects what I said in the OP and a little later on in post no. 12:

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

I'm with you on almost everything you say here; I think the 1832 is probably the closest version of what actually happened to Joseph in his early teens. The issue at hand (i.e. the one in the OP) is the type of persecution described in verse 22 of the official account in JS-H. That doesn't match the 1832 account (which merely states nobody believed him) and there doesn't seem to be any independent evidence that would support JS-H 22 in any meaningful way.

The persecution as described in JS-H 22 is not typical or routine - unless anyone can demonstrate that the typical experiences that you say Bushman describes (I only know them from Palmer) generated enough similar persecution to render what is described in JS-H 22 " typical".

P.S. for BOMT: I know you think good evidence was presented in the posts you keep on mentioning but I'm with Rob on this one that (1) these posts have not been ignored, and (2) the evidence presented therein is very meager. We can disagree about the second assessment but the first one is a matter of verifiable fact.

[bookofmormontruth]

Not sure what type of evidence you expected. A "breaking news" headline in the NY times?

At best, journals would be the best resources which quite a few were posted. Yes, the sources are debatable because most are second hand sources, but they become corroborating evidence when they become more in number.

Bottom line: the best evidence is from Joseph Smith himself. Of course critics pick and choose what they want to believe in regards to what Joseph Smith said, but this was a direct source from a prophet of G-d. Can you get any better? Nope.

[Ariarates]

Not sure what type of evidence you expected. A "breaking news" headline in the NY times?

I didn't have a fixed type of evidence in mind when I started the thread. I guess a lot depends on how you read JS-H 22. To me, that sounds like something someone would have taken notice of at the time, much more so than just saying "nobody believed me" like Joseph did in the 1832 narrative. I had expected the historical record te reflect this

Bottom line: the best evidence is from Joseph Smith himself.

It would be if he had been more consistent about this particular aspect of the first vision narrative. As it is, I think Kevin's explanation - that there has been some conflation and editorializing in the 1838/39 version - may be correct, and the 1832 version is closer to what actually happened than the official version. That would mean little or no persecution because of the first vision.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Ariarates