Doctor Steuss

Elphaba, Slight correction on the previous post (maybe). My memory might be flawed, but I recall once reading (and I have no idea where) that there was a later issue of the Jeffersonian that stated the "silversmith" had been acquitted of all charges. So, maybe the shadow isn't cast after all. I really wish I could remember the source, and whether or not it was reliable, but for the time being... be forewarned that the Jeffersonian article might not be as good of evidence as I implied it to be. I really wish I could remember more regarding it (and the source)... Moksha, I haven’t forgotten you (and me adding my personal thoughts/interpretation of that JS quote). I’m kind of gathering my thoughts about it. When I get around to it I will start a new thread and link to it from this one. --“Dr.” Stu

Hi Elphaba, My oh my, what juicy OPR tidbits you have provided me to think about. (Goody-goody). This right here is going to take me a while to think about: I tend to think the Jeffersonian Republican article (Jeferson City, Missouri), in the May 14, 1842 issue throws at least a casual shadow on Rockwell’s guilt (although not altogether persuasive, it does cause a moment of pause). It the issue it was offering a $500 reward (a heafty sum of money if there were doubts) for the arrest and conviction of: “A spare, well built man, about 5 feet 8 inches high, thin visage, pale complexion, regular features, keen, black eye, and remarkably long, slender hand; had on when last seen, a half worn brown or grey beaverteen frock coat, a warm cloth vest, boots considerably worn, and dark drab, smooth cast broad brim hat. He landed at Owens landing, Jackson county, off the steamboat Rowena, on the 27th day of April, and departed on the same boat, on the 29th of the same month, for Lexington, Mo., and on the evening of the assassination, was seen in the vicinity of Independence – which with many other corroborating circumstances, leaves no doubt of his guilt.” (Unfortunately, I don’t have the full source here with me, but it does actually give a name [Tennison, or Lewison I think... he claimed he was a silversmith to people he had talked to]). I’ll have to check my Dewey biography of OPR (which I’m planning on re-reading soon). But, I recall he had some evidence showing Rockwell to have been elsewhere when the deed was done. It might be a while though as I'm too caught up in my re-read of Schindler and want to re-complete it before I go back to Dewey. Also, I don’t think there could have been a third party involved if Joseph ordered it as one of the things claimed regarding Joseph’s complicity in the matter was that Joseph had personally given Rockwell payment (a coach and several other items IIRC) for the deed. Rockwell adamantly denied that was the reason for the gift. Although we could go down the rabbit hole of "perhaps Joseph gave it to him for X despite the fact that they both know the reason was really Y." But such thoughts (IMO) tend to start drifting into the realm of conspiracy theories. If Rockwell did it, IMO he acted on his own accord. This doesn’t mean he may not have thought Joseph wanted it of him, but he did not do so under his direction. In the end though, I agree with Schindler that the evidence (in regards to OPR’s guilt) is probably ultimately inconclusive. As Schindler concludes (on page 73), "In any event, only Rockwell knew the truth of the matter, and he took that with him to the grave." But... you have provided an interesting insight regarding Rockwell's black and white thinking and a possible other avenue regarding Joseph's potential involvement. I'm going to have to give it some thought. If I run accross any other little tidbits during my re-read of Schindler, I'll PM them to you (or maybe start a Rockwell thread). Some good stuff ot mull-over that is... Thank you, Stuart T'was no greater friend than he...

As it does me often. But at the same time, I do tend to forget that not everyone was as fortunate as I am (with a father that has a library that would make many historians of Mormonism drool). I didn't ever take advantage of it in my youth, but it was always there. A poster here on the board recently reminded me again (and I do need to be reminded often) of how fortunate I was by noting that they didn't have a Deseret Book anywhere near them.I just get a bit irked when the claim is made that these things are "hidden." The claim is patently false. Are they presented in a scholarly and/or "objective" format that would hold out in a peer-reviewed journal? Rarely if ever. Nonetheless, they are there, and there is nothing to prevent a member from purchasing books on the Church's history ranging from Vogel & Brodie to Bushman & Anderson. And thank you for being forgiving of my little attitude problem (which still lingered in my second edition of my reply to you). I have the nasty habit of becoming... well -- insert colorful adjective -- towards the weekend on the various message boards I participate on. Misanthropic Misology

Some might dig this (I certainly do). I love it when a truth transcends denominational/sectarian/religious barriers... Baha’i Faith: “Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself” – Baha’u’llah, Gleanings Hinduism: “This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.” – Mahabharata 5:1517 Buddhism: “Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” – Udana-Varga 5.18 Confucianism: “One word which sums up the basis of all good conduct… loving kindness. Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.” -- Confucius, Analects 15.23 Taoism: “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” T’ai Shang Kan, Ying P’ien, 213-218 Sikhism: “I am a stranger to no one; and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all.” – Guru Granth Sahib, pg. 1299 Christianity: “In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law of the prophets.” – Jesus, Matthew 7:12 Unitarianism: “We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.” – Unitarian principle Native Spirituality: “We are as much alive as we keep the earth alive” – Chief Dan George Zoroastrianism: “Do not do unto others whatever is injurious to yourself.” – Shayast-na-Shayast 13.29 Jainism: “One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be treated.” -- Mahazira, Sutrakritanga Judaism: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary.” – Hillel, Talmud, Shabbal 31a Islam: “Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself.” – The Prophet Mohammed, Hadith

[deleted original response -- it's been a long week and there was a lot of spite in my first response which I will probably regret later] Buzzyboy, Perhaps there was some arrogance in my post (and I appreciate your pointing it out by using an inordinate amount of arrogance, invective and assumption in yours -- it did well to help me recognize the shortcomings of my responses). I was not trying to present a scholarly treatise on the topics as I wasn’t presented such in the OP. I was merely showing that the things which were claimed to be "hidden" in the OP were in fact not "hidden." Could I have done so with less arrogance, etc.? Yes, but given that the OP had a cut n paste from that pillar of objectivity, exmormon.org, I felt like giving the same respect to the post that the post seemed to have for the beliefs of my family and friends. BTW, Do you really think Dialogue (the journal) is laughable?

I haven't seen Him, but I know someone else that has. And this other person was lost too before seeing Him; but was "found" after the experience: -------End Sappy Sacrament Meeting Answer------- On a personal note, I know where you're coming from (although I've brought it upon myself). I'm too Mormon for non-LDS girls and I'm not Mormon enough for LDS girls....

As Mahatma Gandhi once said: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

In speaking about the assasination attempt of Governor Boggs, Schindler notes that Rockwell never denied having done it, he only denied that Joseph ordered him to do so. After making this important (or semi-important) observation, Schindler then states (emphasis mine): One of Rockwell’s virtues was his unalloyed veracity; he did not lie. Harold Schindler, Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God / Son of Thunder (University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 1983 [second Edition]), p 73 Footnoted after this statement is: Gearge W. Bean, Autobiography, compiled by Flora Diana Bean Horne (Salt Lake City, 1945), p 175 I would agree that Rockwell was extremely loyal to Joseph (maybe even to a fault). But I tend to think that if Rockwell discovered a fraud within Joseph, it would have broken his heart to the extent that he would have at the least abandoned Joseph and at the most, made sure Joseph found himself at the wrong end of Rockwell's keen marksmanship.

Sorry. It was truly good stuff; I didn't mean to derail (I have a really bad habit of being a thread derailer)...

No, you aren't overly sensitive, and I'm glad you called me out on this. For clarification, I was indeed using "exmormon/exmormons" to mean "exmormon.com." I will go back an edit the posts. And for any onlookers... Have you hugged an ex-Mormon today? And back to you (Elphaba)... My trust cannot be earned, it can only be lost. As of yet, you haven't lost it. -Stu

OK, final one (I’m going to be extra lazy with this one) -- The "Martyrdom": So, if a man fires a few shots to defend his brother and friends from a pepperbox pistol against a large mob, that equates to a gun battle? When Joseph’s dead body was propped against the well and shot more (as some sources claim), was that part of this “gun battle” that you speak of also? Are you (and/or exmormon.com) really seriously about this? I certainly hope not. But, let’s see if the Church has tried to “hide” the fact that Joseph Smith 1) Had a pistol, and 2) Fired shots (BTW, Joseph wounded a few of his assailants, but did not kill any).The Prophet then stood, and with a firm step he went to the door, pulled the pepperbox from his pocket, and, reaching around the door casing, fired blindly into the hallway. He snapped all six shots. Half discharged, striking three men. Yikes! Surely this must be from some obscure source!?!?! Nope. This is from: Reed Blake, “Martyrdom at Carthage,” Ensign, June 1994, 30 By “secret sexual liaisons” I assume you mean polygamy? It’s amazing at how many people in this world have accidental children during one night stands, yet Joseph (as far as evidence shows) never fathered a child other than with Emma. But of course, this isn’t about polygamy, this is about why was Joseph jailed. On a side note: Have you even read the paper (it has quite a bit more in it than what you/exmormon.com claims)? But, let’s look at whether or not the Church has tried to “hide” the fact that Joseph was in jail because of the destruction “a Nauvoo newspaper.” On the morning of Tuesday, June 25, events moved rapidly. Joseph and Hyrum, charged with riot for the June 10 destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press, surrendered themselves to Constable Davis Bettisworth in Carthage despite being acquitted earlier on related charges. Nauvoo City Council members, feeling that the press threatened their lives and liberties by inciting mob violence against them, had ruled, within the rights they felt were granted by the Nauvoo Charter, that the newspaper was a public nuisance. As directed by the city council, the Prophet, acting as mayor, had then ordered the marshal to destroy the press The above is from: Reed Blake, “Martyrdom at Carthage,” Ensign, June 1994, 30 The igniting spark was the destruction of the defectors´ intemperate newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor, as a public nuisance by the Nauvoo city marshal, under orders from Joseph Smith and the city council. Removal of this press came after the first and only issue had vilified Joseph Smith, pledged to cause repeal of the protective Nauvoo charters, and invited mob action against the Saints. Joseph Smith´s enemies countered the destroying of the press with criminal charges against him and his brother for inciting a riot. The brothers soon gained release from arrest on a habeas corpus before an LDS tribunal. Then, following the advice of a state circuit court judge, they appeared before a non-Mormon justice in Nauvoo and were exonerated of the charges against them. However, threats of mob violence increased. In Warsaw and Carthage, newspapers called for extermination of the Mormons. On June 18, Joseph Smith mobilized his troops to protect Nauvoo. When Illinois governor Thomas Ford apparently sided with the opposition and ordered the Church leaders to stand trial again on the same charges, this time in Carthage, Joseph and Hyrum first considered appealing to U.S. President John Tyler, but then decided instead to cross the Mississippi and escape to the West. Pressured by family and friends who felt abandoned and who believed Joseph to be nearly invincible, he agreed to return and surrender; but he prophesied that he would be going "like a lamb to the slaughter" and would be "murdered in cold blood" (HC 6:555, 559). Joseph urged Hyrum to save himself and succeed him as prophet, but Hyrum refused and accompanied his brother to Carthage. From: Joseph I. Bentley, "Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 860-862 -- BTW, the “Encyclopedia of Mormonism” was basically sanctioned by the Church. So far, not looking so good. Although you will probably view the above as “slanted,” it nonetheless demonstrates the reason why Joseph was jailed (the reason which according to you the Church has tried to “hide”).

This sounds really good Dr. Steuss, could you expound on this further? Hi Moksha (always good to see an familiar face [or avatar rather]), Are you looking for me to exound on it with my own personal interpretations, or with more quotes by Brother Joseph (and Brother Brigham)? -Stu

prisonchaplain, Here's another quote from Joseph that might help show his opinion of other religions: "The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a Mormon, I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholic or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves." Documentary History of the Church Vol.5, p. 498 And here's a variation of the quote from Don Bradley's paper (would have included these in the other post, but it sometimes takes me a while to figure out what files on my computer contain what info): "Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons." History of the Church 5:517 Also, Gordon B. Hinckley in a 1998 conference session had this to say: "We can respect other religions, and must do so. We must recognize the great good they accomplish. We must teach our children to be tolerant and friendly toward those not of our faith. We can and do work with those of other religions in the defense of those values which have made our civilization great and our society distinctive."

As I understand it (and the evidence that I am aware of), he investigated the Methodists before his theophany, and he also attended meetings (and some "bible study classes") after. The main thing that the Lord appeared to have a problem with (in regards to the FV) is the creeds. IMO, they no doubt were viewed as "wrong, but not without some redemptive character." Perhaps this might help (this is from the April 2006 issue of Sunstone in Don Bradley's paper "The Grand Fundamental Principles of Mormonism" pg 36) -- emphasis mine: He further expounded this principle in the 23 July 1843 sermon in which he also defined the grand fundamental principle of friendship. Joseph’s diary, kept by Willard Richards, offers the following sketchy report of this portion of the sermon: “Presbyterians any truth. embrace that. Baptist. Methodist &c. get all the good in the world. come out a pure Mormon.” We might reconstruct his message as follows: “Have the Presbyterians any truth? Embrace that. Have the Baptists, Methodists, and so forth? Embrace that. Get all the good in the world, and you will come out a pure Mormon.” The prophet himself proved a “pure Mormon” in the very act of drawing Masonic tenets into Mormonism. Similarly, there is a common theme expressed not only by Joseph himself, but also by Brigham Young on many occassions that as Mormons, we are to actively seek out truth and except it "come from where it may." Here's another statement by Joseph (taken from the same paper): Mormonism is truth. . . . The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same. And, not that it matters, but the author of the paper (Don Bradley) is an ex-Mormon.

Ok, maybe I will do another one (I'm gonna be kind of lazy with this one as I might have expended a wee bit too much energy on the First Vision): Joseph’s family joining other churches is really a moot point (if you can’t see why it is, I can try to explain). As for Joseph. First, I’m not quite sure that attending a Methodist probationary class is the equivalent of applying for membership. Also, let’s take a look at a bit of evidence shall we? Pomeroy Tucker (a non-Mormon [you should be excited about that] who knew Joseph) wrote: At one point 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.” Pomeroy Tucker, “Origin, Rise and Progress of Mormonism” (New York D. Appleton and Co., 1867, 17-18). Now, how about we look at Joseph’s own words: I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit: but in process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them. Dean C. Jessee, ed., “The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith” (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984), 198 What in the world is the Church doing, letting something like Joseph’s affinity for the Methodists and his desire to be united with them, get published in a book put out by Deseret Book? They need a lesson on how to hide things better.

That's the first sonnet I ever memorized, and to this day remains my favorite.

Wishing me like to one more rich in hope, Featured like him, like him with friends possessed, Desiring this man's art, and that man's scope, With what I most enjoy contented least; Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising, Haply I think on thee, and then my state, Like to the lark at break of day arising From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven's gate

I'd be lying if I said that some aspects of my life haven't been neglected in order to compile/read/study these things. But, in many ways it's a hobby (I know... strange hobby). Which is probably the wisest of courses to take. Unfortunately for me, this seems to have been tailor written for me:D&C 88: 118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith. I have yet to even begin to grasp how to seek learning "by faith" though. Line, upon line I guess... Also, I don't know why, but this tends to ring pretty loudly to me: D&C 123:5-7 5 And all that are in the magazines, and in the encyclopedias, and all the libelous histories that are published, and are writing, and by whom, and present the whole concatenation of diabolical rascality and nefarious and murderous impositions that have been practised upon this people— 6 That we may not only publish to all the world, but present them to the heads of government in all their dark and hellish hue, as the last effort which is enjoined on us by our Heavenly Father, before we can fully and completely claim that promise which shall call him forth from his hiding place; and also that the whole nation may be left without excuse before he can send forth the power of his mighty arm. 7 It is an imperative duty that we owe to God, to angels, with whom we shall be brought to stand, and also to ourselves, to our wives and children, who have been made to bow down with grief, sorrow, and care, under the most damning hand of murder, tyranny, and oppression, supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity.

Watch on, watch on… ...And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries, And look upon myself and curse my fate...

When, in disgrace with Fortune and men's eyes, I all alone beweep my outcast state...

Just noticed that I didn't really address this question (which I think needs a more direct reply): The version which is canonized is considered to be the "official" version of the Church. However, IMO study of the other versions can give insights as to different aspects of this experience and help to more fully comprehend and understand it. It is important to remember that LDS neither believe in the inerrancy of scripture nor the infallibility of prophets. And I'm spent...

Shhhhh....

Number 1 (admitedly though, I don't know if I've got the energy to address all of the stuff, so this might be the only thing I address... sorry about that): The very first thing regarding this... Is the fact that there are varying accounts of the First Vision, and that they have differences “hidden” by the Church (as you claim)? I refer you to: Milton V. Backman Jr., “Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision,” Ensign, Jan 1985, 8 Richard L. Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s Testimony of the First Vision,” Ensign, Apr. 1996, 10 Milton V. Backman Jr., “Confirming Witnesses of the First Vision,” Ensign, Jan. 1986, 32 Milton V. Backman, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Apr. 1992, 59 (This one mostly deals with Brigham Young’s comments concerning the FV) Richard L. Anderson, "Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision through Reminiscences," BYU Studies, Vol. 9:3 (1969), 1-27 Richard L. Anderson, "Parallel Prophets: Paul and Joseph Smith," BYU Speeches (9 August 1983) Milton V. Backman, Jr., "Awakenings in the Burned-over District: New Light on the Historical Settings of the First Vision," BYU Studies (1969), 1-15 (This mostly deals with the revivals, etc. of the area, but does mention the different accounts of the FV) Hugh W. Nibley, "Censoring the Joseph Smith Story," Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1991), 55-101 And most importantly, the Church News discussed the various accounts of the First Vision and the discrepancies between them in the week ending May 26, 2007 issue (I can’t recall the title of the article, but Scott Lloyd was the author). But a few of the things stated in this article were that there are "...varying accounts of the First Vision.” The 1832 account mentions only one Heavenly visitor. The 1838-39 account describes a religious revival, yet no such movement can be documented in the town of Palmyra, N.Y., in the spring of 1820 (it does discuss somewhat the evidence for revivals in the area and some of the dating errors that may have occurred regarding it… but the revival is a topic for another day). And, here’s the real gem of the article: Some have pointed to a possible discrepancy between the 1832 account and later versions. In 1832, Joseph said he had decided after studying the scriptures that no denomination was built upon the New Testament gospel. Yet in the original 1838 account is the parenthetical statement that "at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong." Now, hopefully that lays to rest the issue of whether or not the Church has tried to “hide” the fact that there are various accounts of the First Vision, and that those accounts differ in details. For anyone to suggest that the Church has tried to hide this or is actively trying to hide this is rather silly and reveals more about themselves than it does the Church. And as for a concise analysis of those differences to show that perhaps they aren’t all that contra-Mos try to make them out to be, please see: Joseph Smith's First Vision – A Harmony (by Elden J. Watson). Also, this is even a shorter treatment (if you don’t feel like reading much): The First Vision (this is done by Mike Ash. He is a Mormon, so you’ll probably discount it [along with everything else I’ve provided], but Mike Ash tends to garner respect from most contra-Mos on the main board I participate on). As for my personal view on the First Vision, and why it took so long to write down, etc. I tend to think that Joseph originally saw it as a personal conversion experience, and not necessarily as the opening of a new dispensation. I don’t think Joseph realized his prophetic calling until much later. I will defer to Terryl Givens who explains this rather well, IMO. This is from Terryl L. Givens, “By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion,” 2003 Paperback Edition (New York: Oxford University Press), pages 9-10 “Like many seekers of the Second Awakening, the young Smith found himself caught up in a scene of fervid revivalism and confused by the competing claims of ministers seeking converts. Deciding to pray for heavenly guidance, Smith had retired to the woods to ask God which church he should join. On that early spring morning in 1820, two personages, identifying themselves as God the Father and Jesus Christ, had appeared to the boy in a grove of trees on his father’s homestead (2). Though it may be true, as Mormon historian Richard Bushman writes, that in seeking such guidance “an answer for himself must be an answer for the entire world” and that with the vision “a new era in history began,” the boy’s initial reading was clearly less grandiose (3). His personal quest for spiritual guidance may have precipitated an epiphany on the order of Paul’s on the road to Damascus, but the important truths he learned were that his personal sins were forgiven and that he should hold himself aloof from the sects of his day. Although the timing and the naming of the event assign it absolute primacy in the founding of Mormonism, the vision was described by the young Joseph and apparently interpreted by him at the time as a private experience with no greater implications for the world at large or for Christian believers generally. In returning from the divine visitation, his understated remark, to his mother was simply, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” (4) In fact, so far was Smith at this point from universalizing his private revelation that his own mother continued her affiliation with the Presbyterian church for another several years. Apparently Smith did share his experience with at least a few persons outside the family circle, for he later said that he was chastised by the clergy and ridiculed by neighbors for his claims (5). It was not until 1832 that he actually recorded the event, and he withheld publishing a version until 1842, just two years before his death (6). Accordingly, neither Smith nor Mormon missionaries made much mention of the vision in the early years of Mormonism (7). Even in the 1830 “Revelation on Church Organization and Government,” a kind of manifesto that heralded the church’s formal founding, the vision received no more than a passing, cryptic allusion to a time when “it was truly manifested unto this first elder [Joseph Smith] that he had received a remission of his sins.” (8 ) Clearly, the experience was understood at the time, and even scripturally portrayed, as part of a personal conversion narrative, not the opening scene in a new gospel dispensation.” Endnotes (from Givens, "By The Hand of Mormon..."): (2). Between 1832 and 1842, Joseph would write or dictate several accounts of this vision. In the first, he mentions only on personage. See Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Papers of Joseph Smith, vol. 1, Autobiographical and Historical Writings (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989), for those versions as well as some contemporary secondhand accounts. (3). Richard L. Bushman’s account of early Mormonism is the best to date. See his Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1984), 55,57 (4). Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., ed. James Mulholland, Robert B. Thompson, William W. Phelps, Willard Richards, George A. Smith, and later B.H. Roberts (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1902-12; 2nd rev. ed., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1951), 1:6. Bushman observes that the confusion of the prophet’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, over the details of Joseph’s first vision seems to confirm that he shared few particulars of his experience even with close family. As Bushman notes, “even twelve years after the event the First Vision’s personal significance for him still overshadowed its place in the divine plan.” (Bushman, Joseph Smith, 56). (5). Disapproval by “one of the Methodist preachers” – probably George Lane – is the only specific instance he provides of the “severe persecution at the hands of all classes of men, both religious and irreligious” referred to in his personal history (JS-H 1:21-27). (6). Two years before the publication of Joseph’s official version in 1842, his friend Orson Pratt had published an account related to him by the prophet. See An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records (Edinburgh: Ballyntyne and Hughes, 1840). For a study of the different accounts of the First Vision, see Milton V. Backman Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980). (7) See James B. Allen, “The Significance of Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’ in Mormon Thought,” Dialogue 1 (autumn 1966): 29-45; Marvin Hill, “On the First Vision and Its Importance in the Shaping of Early Mormonism,” Dialogue 12 (spring 1979): 90-99; James B. Allen, “The Emergence of a Fundamental: The Expanding Role of Joseph Smith’s First Vision in Mormon Thought,” Journal of Mormon History 7 (1980): 43-61. (8 ). Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 20:5. In 1833, a compilation of revelations received by Joseph Smith was published as the Book of Commandments. In 1835, the volume was expanded and republished as the Doctrine and Covenants. This volume, along with the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price, is one of the “standard works” considered scripture by Latter-day Saints. Here are links to the Dialogue Articles from the endnotes: The Significance of Joseph Smith's 'First Vision' in Mormon Thought by James B. Allen (Begins on page 29) A Note on Joseph Smith's First Vision and its Import In the Shaping of Early Mormonism by Marvin S. Hill (Begins on page 90) And another good Dialogue article can be found here: The First Vision Story Revised by Richard Bushman (Begins on page 82) -- This gets into much of the scholarly aspects regarding the historicity of the revival and where and when it was occuring. BTW, Richard Bushman seems to have managed to talk about this “true history” without being excommunicated. I wonder why that is? Must be a fluke of some sort.

Mvanderl, I will try to address as many of your points and concerns as possible a little later in the day. FYI though, a few of the anachronisms you listed have been verified to have actually been in pre-Columbian America. The remainder may just be nothing more than anachronisms. Also, as for the Church "hiding" history, a recent thread on the MA&D message board was devoted to nothing more than showing that almost every controversial aspect of church history has been published in an official church publication (albeit many were published in the 70's or 80's [and in some instances, BH Roberts publications were much older]), but the point being that the Church hasn't hidden them, it just doesn't spoon feed.