The Problem With The First Vision Accounts

[Uncle Dale]

.

...the following item might also be brought to their attention...

 

 

 

 

.

Then again -- no need for that. A dozen different sources

clearly show that the Methodist Rev. Lane was active in

the 1823-25 Great Palmyra Revival (and not in any 1820

Palmyra camp-meetings) -- and thus could not have given

young Joe an 1820 recommend to read James' epistle...

 

>Oliver Cowdery in his letters confirms the story of

>Reverend Lane and the date of his work in Palmyra.

 

An additional ten brownie points to whomever correctly identifies

the LDS Apostle who directs us to Oliver Cowdery's letters and

to his "remember this correction" on the Great Palmyra Revival date

 

UD

(nope, it was not J. Reuben Clark -- though he would have been a good guess)

[name]

Hey UD!

Ten brownie points will be awarded by yours truly to the first contributor

here who can identify the writer of "remember this correction."

Oliver Cowdery

(Written while he was editor of the Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate) 

[Uncle Dale]

Hey UD!

Oliver Cowdery

(Written while he was editor of the Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate) 

 

 

True enough -- and we should recall that historians often refer

us back to those "Messenger and Advocate letters" as supplying

at least the kind of information that Joseph Smith approved of, 

even if he did not set his name in type at the head of every column.

 

As a matter of fact, he did respond to some of what Cowdery was

saying (and having published, for all the Saints to read), so we

know that he kept track of what the Church newspaper was telling

to the world.

 

Cowdery made a correction and the other Church leaders let that

correction of age and date stand, without any known disagreement.

 

Consider these two imaginary possibilities, just as an analog:

 

1a. Cowdery publishes an article saying the Church was established

in 1831, and people read the article and wonder if it is right.

 

2a. Cowdery publishes a correction, saying it was 1830 instead, and

nobody disagrees. -- Which date is more likely correct, 1830 or 1831?

 

or

 

1b. Cowdery publishes an article saying the Church was established

in 1830, and people read the article and wonder if it is right.

 

2b. Cowdery publishes a correction, saying it was 1831 instead, and

nobody disagrees. -- Which date is more likely correct, 1830 or 1831?

 

To me (at least) an example like I've given for "2b." seems to be almost

an impossibility. We do not see corrections in LDS publications which

are not pointed out by SOMEBODY if they are problematic corrections,

concerning important matters.

 

The counter-argument would be that in 1840 and again in 1842, the

Church newspaper editor and/or Orson Pratt disagreed with Cowdery's

correction, but saw no reason to point out that longstanding discrepancy,

 

UD

(interesting, though, that no reputable LDS historian now argues for an 1820 "read James" suggestion from Rev. Lane)

[hagoth7]

 

You are inserting fallacies that have nothing to do of what J Smith said , Ii is obvious to me and the looky-looks  that you are not answering the question...one more time ..Give me a corroborating account from a person/friend/foe/newspaper/dairy/family/etc/ that J Smith told this story anywhere between 1820-to 1838...the burden of proof is on you...and J Smith that claims he told this story, if you keep referring to you mantra that I prove my point to you, I don't want to waste my time with you, and let us go on record that you did not answer the question, you are just plain filibustering the theme/issue...

 

 

As memory serves, in 1856, my forefather moved from Sweden to Denmark. (Parish records in both countries confirm the migration.) Two years later he was baptized a member of the LDS church. There is no mention in any contemporary family record, or in any contemporary newspaper record, of his actual conversion experience, other than a record that states the time and place of his baptism. Yet I am convinced by his subsequent actions over the next forty years that the Holy Ghost told him that the Church of Jesus Christ had been restored, and that the Book of Mormon was true scripture. That said, I have no written record from him or from his family members of his recorded testimony.

 

Since contemporary evidence is lacking in Scandinavia for details of my forefather's conversion experience in the 19th century, why would you expect evidence from the 1820's or the 1830's to confirm Joseph Smith's account? In spite of that lack of evidence, doesn't his life over the subsequent years count for anything? Doesn't Carthage count for anything?

[TMESSENGER]

We have the three closely related Pratt and T&S accounts,

all of which read very much the same.

 

Whether it was intended that they be released to the public in

the way that they were, or whether it was sheer coincidence,

it is only in the last of the three -- the April 1, 1842 T&S account,

that it is made fully clear that one of the personages is the son

of the other. And only the words "Beloved Son" convey the

author's intention to tell the reader that it is God the Father and

God the Son that he is speaking of.

 

Had the two personages not been described using that special

terminology, an uninformed reader might think that it was two

angels Mormon and his son Moroni, who were delivering a divine

message. On the other hand, Mormon would have had no reason

to echo Christian scripture's Mark ch. 1 and Matthew ch. 3 with

their " beloved son in whom I'm well pleased" Christological phrase.

 

Thus there appears to be an evolutionary transition, from what

could have been angels to what could be no other pair than

Eloheim and Jehovah. But, since Joseph Smith himself neglects

to say distinctly "I met with God the Father and God the Son,"

the matter appears somewhat ambiguous.

 

However, when I say "ambiguous" I mean in the perception of the

uninformed non-Mormon reader, living back in 1842, who had the

two Times & Seasons accounts (and the Pratt pamphlet) in front

of him. That ignorant Gentile (not knowing that Smith called one

of these personages "Lord" in his 1832 account) might be forgiven

for thinking there was a theological evolution discernible in the

wording of the three texts.

 

It seems to bother TMessenger's mind, that Smith did not articulate

an "I met with God the Father and God the Son" message to his

followers. And, considering the fact that Bother William, Mother Lucy,

John Taylor and Brigham Young continued, for years, to speak of

angelic visitations (and not theophanies) for Mormonism's origin,

it is understandable why TMessenger should be so perturbed.

 

But the Latter Day Saints have a known context in which to read

the three accounts I've mentioned -- and that greater context

clearly identifies the "personages" as Eloheim and Jehovah.

 

UD

(besides which, if Mormon had an eternal family he would not have been a ministering angel)

Eloheim and Jehovah??

 

According to the mormon scriptures?(bom,d&c,and the Bible,  PoGP was not yet canonized )  from, 1830 to 1876, the mormon church taught that there was only one God and by all accounts the LDS teaching was that Jehovah was the name of God the Father and that Elohim was the term for God (gods)

 

For starters, let me quote three  examples..."...the great Eloheim Jejovah has been please once more to speak from the heavens...(Proclamation of the twelve, April 6 1845, messages of the First Presidency 1:253 LDS Historical Library 2nd Ed)

 

"...let us plead the justice of our cause, trusting in the arm of Jehovah, the Eloheim, who sits enthroned in the heavens...( J Smith Aug ,14, 1842, History of the Church 5:94)

And finally, Times and seasons an early periodical of the early  mormon church Vol 3 p-578 stated.(Nov 15, 1841).."We believe in God the Father, who is the great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God 

 

But of course in 1916,  there was much confusion over the two names, Eloheim and Jehovah. the mormon church  published a doctrinal exposition declaring that .."..Jesus Christ, whom we also know as Jehovah was the executive of the Father, Eloheim..."  (Articles of Faith, by James E. Talmage (a biggie) LDS 1976 Ed, Appendix 2, pp 465,467, 472-473)  and of course this change  continues to teach  that Eloheim is the name-title of God the Father and that Jehovah is the name of his Son, the pre- mortal Jesus Christ , the God of the OT (another god)...I am getting a headache...

 

Contrast these teachings with three statements from the Bible

 

" but the LORD [Jehovah] is the true God [Elohim].".(Jer 10:10)

 

"I am the LORD [Jehovah], and there is none else, there is no God [Elohim] beside me (Isaiah 45:5)

 

" I am the LORD [Jehovah], thy God [Elohim]...Thou shalt have   no other gods [eloheim] before me " (Exo 20:2-3)...I stick with the Bible , the older judges the new (the new kid on the block)

 

Mr Dale , could I ask you, what church do you attend? 

[mfbukowski]

error

Edited March 7, 2015 by mfbukowski

[TMESSENGER]

TMESSENGER I have a question. Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?

Many times, I have two copies of the original copy of the original published by the mormon church through desert store/print? I also have several 1920 editions, one of them belong to the only patriarch emeritus since 1979  of the church(Eldred G Smith) J Smith Senior was the first Patriarch , after he died Hyrum Smith became the Patriarch , Eldred G Smith book   has his signature on it...I also have Joseph Smith  Begins His Work Copyright 1958 by Wilford C Wood  and I have it underlined with more than 4000 + changes from the original

 

I also have the copy that has the newest changes.

In the introduction...where originally read .."..and the Lamanites they are the ancestors of the American Indians,?... now it reads... "..Lamanites and  they are  among the ancestors of the American Indians,[among, was added]..

 

.Another change is in the beginning of the introduction,,,    " The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible, it is a record of God's dealings  with the ancients inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel   it now reads....  " The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible, it is a record of God's dealings  with the ancients inhabitants of the Americas and contains, [as does the Bible], the fulness of the everlasting gospel  [ as does the Bible] has been removed!

 

This bom is published by Doubleday, Random House , Inc 2004 , and there is another bom the same color but slightly taller if put together , that has not these two changes...

I was in a LDS book store and saw this taller bom, (did not know it was taller yet, at this time) so  I tell the sales lady, do you know that there are two changes on this new bom?  really?  she said,,,show me please...so I opened it to the introduction, and could not find the changes, I told the lady, let me get my copy, I went to my car, returned with my bom, and they were there in my bom but not on the store copy, and the store copy was taller...

[TMESSENGER]

Ask Rob Bowman.

 

He didn't understand what we believe any more than you do.  What is your view on the Great Hagar vision?  That answers it all.

 

God of the Bible  is in control. who am I that I should applied any judgment on Abram? in those days, it was customary to have more than one physical therapy partner...

and Robert Bowman and I, believe in the Bible and we consider ourselves true believers...we both believe Matt 11:27, and Luk 10:22  Jesus of the Bible has revealed the true God of the Universe, to Us.

[Kevin Christensen]

Eloheim and Jehovah??

 

According to the mormon scriptures?(bom,d&c,and the Bible,  PoGP was not yet canonized )  from, 1830 to 1876, the mormon church taught that there was only one God and by all accounts the LDS teaching was that Jehovah was the name of God the Father and that Elohim was the term for God (gods)

 

For starters, let me quote three  examples..."...the great Eloheim Jejovah has been please once more to speak from the heavens...(Proclamation of the twelve, April 6 1845, messages of the First Presidency 1:253 LDS Historical Library 2nd Ed)

 

"...let us plead the justice of our cause, trusting in the arm of Jehovah, the Eloheim, who sits enthroned in the heavens...( J Smith Aug ,14, 1842, History of the Church 5:94)

And finally, Times and seasons an early periodical of the early  mormon church Vol 3 p-578 stated.(Nov 15, 1841).."We believe in God the Father, who is the great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God 

 

But of course in 1916,  there was much confusion over the two names, Eloheim and Jehovah. the mormon church  published a doctrinal exposition declaring that .."..Jesus Christ, whom we also know as Jehovah was the executive of the Father, Eloheim..."  (Articles of Faith, by James E. Talmage (a biggie) LDS 1976 Ed, Appendix 2, pp 465,467, 472-473)  and of course this change  continues to teach  that Eloheim is the name-title of God the Father and that Jehovah is the name of his Son, the pre- mortal Jesus Christ , the God of the OT (another god)...I am getting a headache...

 

Contrast these teachings with three statements from the Bible

 

" but the LORD [Jehovah] is the true God [Elohim].".(Jer 10:10)

 

"I am the LORD [Jehovah], and there is none else, there is no God [Elohim] beside me (Isaiah 45:5)

 

" I am the LORD [Jehovah], thy God [Elohim]...Thou shalt have   no other gods [eloheim] before me " (Exo 20:2-3)...I stick with the Bible , the older judges the new (the new kid on the block)

 

Mr Dale , could I ask you, what church do you attend? 

 

Ah yes, the fine art of selective proof texting, so much more suitable for such purposes than careful reading and contextualizing.

 

Alternatively, one could read a bit more comprehensively, seeking understanding, rather than rhetorical jabs, but that would lead to things like http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=12 and this http://www.theway.org.uk/back/431Barker.pdf which in turn would lead to a much better understanding.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[rodheadlee]

Many times, I have two copies of the original copy of the original published by the mormon church through desert store/print? I also have several 1920 editions, one of them belong to the only patriarch emeritus since 1979  of the church(Eldred G Smith) J Smith Senior was the first Patriarch , after he died Hyrum Smith became the Patriarch , Eldred G Smith book   has his signature on it...I also have Joseph Smith  Begins His Work Copyright 1958 by Wilford C Wood  and I have it underlined with more than 4000 + changes from the original

 

I also have the copy that has the newest changes.

In the introduction...where originally read .."..and the Lamanites they are the ancestors of the American Indians,?... now it reads... "..Lamanites and  they are  among the ancestors of the American Indians,[among, was added]..

 

.Another change is in the beginning of the introduction,,,    " The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible, it is a record of God's dealings  with the ancients inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel   it now reads....  " The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible, it is a record of God's dealings  with the ancients inhabitants of the Americas and contains, [as does the Bible], the fulness of the everlasting gospel  [ as does the Bible] has been removed!

 

This bom is published by Doubleday, Random House , Inc 2004 , and there is another bom the same color but slightly taller if put together , that has not these two changes...

I was in a LDS book store and saw this taller bom, (did not know it was taller yet, at this time) so  I tell the sales lady, do you know that there are two changes on this new bom?  really?  she said,,,show me please...so I opened it to the introduction, and could not find the changes, I told the lady, let me get my copy, I went to my car, returned with my bom, and they were there in my bom but not on the store copy, and the store copy was taller...

Oh good, then you must be familiar with 2 Nephi 29: 3-8

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

Mr Dale , could I ask you, what church do you attend? 

 

.

Most recently? That would have been the United Methodist congregation

here in Hilo. However, I did not participate in that congregation's worship

services -- I mostly attended meetings and study groups. But, for these

past two years, I've been too ill to leave the house much.

 

Latter Day Saint -- to Methodist? -- some may ask what that entails.

 

The transition was an easy one, as I had previously served as one

of the RLDS (now CoC) reps to the local Interfaith Council -- where I

became acquainted with the UM pastor and other active members.

 

At one point I was offered associate membership -- that is, a partial

joining with that congregation, based upon my RLDS baptism and

confirmation -- but no voting rights in business meetings.

 

Strangely enough, I would have been allowed to preach and teach

(as I have a graduate degree in Christianity from a UM seminary).

 

I think Oliver Cowdery was once just such an "associate member" in

the Methodist congregation located in Tiffin, Ohio -- and his adopted

daughter was a full member and married in that church.

 

UD

(however, since I do not profess to be a Christian, preaching would have been problematic)

Edited March 5, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Uncle Dale]

Oh good, then you must be familiar with 2 Nephi 29: 3-8

 

.

This more interesting (and perhaps germane for TMessenger) 

would be the Ether passage -- "I am the Father and the Son"

(Ether 1:77)

 

UD

(that is, in my 1957 Church of Christ Temple Lot Book of Mormon - ch. 3 in the Brighamite one)

[JLHPROF]

.

Most recently? That would have been the United Methodist congregation

here in Hilo. However, I did not participate in that congregation's worship

services -- I mostly attended meetings and study groups. But, for these

past two years, I've been too ill to leave the house much.

 

Latter Day Saint -- to Methodist? -- some may ask what that entails.

 

The transition was an easy one, as I had previously served as one

of the RLDS (now CoC) reps to the local Interfaith Council -- where I

became acquainted with the UM pastor and other active members.

 

At one point I was offered associate membership -- that is, a partial

joining with that congregation, based upon my RLDS baptism and

confirmation -- but no voting rights in business meetings.

 

Strangely enough, I would have been allowed to preach and teach

(as I have a graduate degree in Christianity from a UM seminary).

 

I think Oliver Cowdery was once just such an "associate member" in

the Methodist congregation located in Tiffin, Ohio -- and his adopted

daughter was a full member and married in that church.

 

UD

(however, since I do not profess to be a Christian, preaching would have been problematic)

 

Wow.  Complicated.

[Uncle Dale]

Wow.  Complicated.

 

.

Not all that complicated (to me at least). I'm Latter Day Saint

in my heritage, just like my wife is Jewish in her heritage and

blood. But I actively profess Mormon doctrine only to about

the same extent that she professes Lubavitch Hasidimism --

(which ain't much at all).

 

Back in the late 1960s and all through the 1970s and 1980s

Reorganized pastors (and pastors-to-be) typically attended

United Methodist seminaries for ministerial training and to gain

a background knowledge of Christian tradition and practice.

 

When I say "practice," I mean just that. Most UM congregations 

focus upon practical methods, rather than doctrinal exclusivity.

Even as a non-Christian, I might have partaken of holy communion

here in the Hilo UM congregation. But, I never did.

 

We might also recall that Joseph Smith, Jr. said he was "partial"

to Methodism when living in Manchester, and that he temporarily

joined the Methodist Episcopal class at Harmony, Pennsylvania.

 

After Smith death, his wife Emma, and her kids attended the

Methodist church in Nauvoo -- but were not members at the

time Bernhisel passed through that town, and reported back

to Brigham Young that she was not a member.

 

So, Joseph Smith III and his siblings spent some time in the

Methodist chapel, praying their prayers, singing their hymns,

and listening to their pastors and bishops preaching sermons.

 

It's not so strange, then, that the RLDS leaders in Independence

felt considerable kinship with the professors at St. Paul's -- and

attended its theological and ministry classes.

 

My own UM training was undertaken in Ohio, near Columbus

(hi, Dan Vogel, if you're lurking here today) -- when I was working

on my Solomon Spalding documents research at Oberlin College

(see Kent P. Jackson's 1996 BYU RSC "Manuscript Found" page xx)

 

Nice folks, them Wesleyans...

 

UD

[Tacenda]

Why does his own mother Lucy not know about the First Vision?  And did he lie when he said he was persecuted by religious leaders at the age of 14?  Who did he discuss privately these visions, do we have documented proof of these conversations? 

[Kevin Christensen]

Why does his own mother Lucy not know about the First Vision?  And did he lie when he said he was persecuted by religious leaders at the age of 14?  Who did he discuss privately these visions, do we have documented proof of these conversations?

You could look here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision

Lots of good information.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Tacenda]

You could look here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision

Lots of good information.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

The reason I asked is because I just learned of it.  I guess I thought he told his family immediately and it was documented.  Also there is this article.  

1. http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/significance_1stvision_allen.pdf

[TMESSENGER]

You could look here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision

Lots of good information.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Kevin, what about you...do you have any answers for what you just asked?...I have raised these questions, and no one here has given me any concrete answers to my questions...have you read my original question?  The late Gordon Hinckley said ..."....if the "vision"(emph mine) did not occur, then we are involved in a great sham. It is that simple (teachings of Gordon B Hinckley, p-227)

[JLHPROF]

Kevin, what about you...do you have any answers for what you just asked?...I have raised these questions, and no one here has given me any concrete answers to my questions...have you read my original question?  The late Gordon Hinckley said ..."....if the "vision"(emph mine) did not occur, then we are involved in a great sham. It is that simple (teachings of Gordon B Hinckley, p-227)

 

You still have to answer the CFR I posed yesterday.  Please comply with board rules or retract your statement.

[TMESSENGER]

 

The reason I asked is because I just learned of it.  I guess I thought he told his family immediately and it was documented.  Also there is this article.  

1. http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/significance_1stvision_allen.pdf

 

That is what J Smith claimed in his statement written and canonized by the LDS church...(P of GP) Joseph said he told his mother that he just discover/learned Presbyterian was no true, you would think that if there is no follow up on what his mother responded?...we would have something in the biography she wrote about J Smith, it should have been there for sure...but nothing..she does mentioned this "first vision" and the narrative of the "first vision" was just inserted/ copied  into the biography.. I am ready to go to work, but if you have any questions about any documentation, of what I just posted here do remind me and I will provide this info for you

[Uncle Dale]

Why does his own mother Lucy not know about the First Vision?  And did he lie when he said he was persecuted by religious leaders at the age of 14?  Who did he discuss privately these visions, do we have documented proof of these conversations? 

 

.

I suppose that Hugh Nibley came as close to offering a reasonable

explanation, as anybody ever has ---

 

>it is perfectly correct usage to refer to any heavenly visitor as an angel.

>So when Joseph Smith, reviewing the past in "a brief relation" to a stranger,

>passes over the first vision as his "first visitation of angels" he is being both

>correct and evasive.

Heber C. Kimball once preached that God's appearance to Joseph was 

by way of angelic visitation. At first consideration that idea may sound

like a contradiction -- but it is a biblical concept.

 

Jacob is renamed "he who struggles with YHWH" after a very

strange, almost hostile angelic encounter -- the idea present

in those passages is that YHWH is there, wrestling with Jacob,

even though the narrator uses the term "angel."

 

When ancient Israelite prophets spoke of a theophany, the

passages sometimes include reference or allusion to an entity

called "The Angel of the Presence" -- not a celestialized human

being -- not a Moroni -- but an intermediary entity without a

persona of its own, by which YHWH communes with human beings

and they do not perish in the theophany (god+manifestation, or

more literally, god+face = facing god / god facing man).

 

George A. Smith (Lucy's close relative) once said:

 

>When the holy angel appeared, Joseph inquired which of

>all these denominations was right and which he should join,

>and was told they were all wrong

 

Thus, we can forgive Lucy herself, for not comprehending the

nuanced understanding of God being present in what to human

eyes appears to be (is manifested as) an "angel."

 

But -- erase all of what I just said -- when it comes to post-Brigham

LDS theology. Beginning with John Taylor's "Mediation & Atonement,"

and continuing on down to Talmadge's two classics, Mormonism

has moved away from the ideas held by Heber C. Kimball, Mother

Smith, George A. Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, and a host

of others who represented Joseph Smith Jr.'s visions in terms

compatible with angelic theophany.

 

Nibley tried to span the gap -- but was thus forced to label

Joseph Smith, Jr. as "evasive."

 

Not a very nice way to put it, I'd say.

 

UD

[rodheadlee]

.

This more interesting (and perhaps germane for TMessenger) 

would be the Ether passage -- "I am the Father and the Son"

(Ether 1:77)

 

UD

(that is, in my 1957 Church of Christ Temple Lot Book of Mormon - ch. 3 in the Brighamite one)

Sorry, there is no Ether 1:77 

[Uncle Dale]

Sorry, there is no Ether 1:77

1957 Church of Christ, Temple Lot edition.

That was my initial introduction to the book, and I

still have the one given me the next year.

When I attempt to quote from the Nephite Record, my memory

just naturally goes back to that edition. An 1830 Palmyra

edition was handed down from Father Tyler to my great

Grandma, but some cousin ended up with it. Interestingly

it had the same chapter divisions as my 1957 copy, so

I can generally recall 1830 chapter numbers when I

hear or read a verse quoted.

As for Orson Pratt's division of the book, my view is

that he did a lousy job of it, and would have done better

to have retained Joseph Smith's original chapters. Had

the Brighamites done that, the Brother of Jared "finger"

Christophany would still be in Ether I, where it belongs.

Oh well...

UD

[rodheadlee]

[Uncle Dale]

 

.

I just wish I had that Andrews Tyler 1830 edition -- not for the

value it has on the used-book market, but for another reason.

 

Father Tyler was the brother-in-law of my gr-gr-gr grandfather

and they lived together in Erie County, Pennsylvania and were

converted through the missionary efforts of Hyrum Smith in 1832.

However, Father Tyler was a near neighbor of both Saints and

Gentiles who had known Solomon Spalding personally. Andrews

hosted Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith in his cabin overnight,

as they passed through on their 1833 "mission to Canada" and

was very, very upset and disappointed over some things Rigdon

had to say about Solomon Spalding, the Book of Mormon, etc.

 

He made a note of his unhappy feelings on the back flyleaf of

his Book of Mormon -- which my Grandfather Broadhurst saw

many years later and remembered. I'd give half of my kingdom,

just to have a photo of that 1833 note.

 

UD

(then again I have no kingdom -- so the sacrifice wouldn't be all that bad)