From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Joseph a true latter-day prophet
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:16:00 GMT

From: ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W)
> Well, Joseph Smith was such a man.  Our Heavenly Father and his son, Jesus
> Christ visited Joseph when he was a boy only fourteen years old.

        I get the impression you are confusing what the LDS say, with
what actually happened.  A posting has already appeared detailing some
of the various 'First Vision' accounts.  There also exist problems in
Joseph's story as compared to history.

        In 1967 the whole scene of Mormon historical research was
radically altered by a Presbyterian minister by the name of Wesley
Walters. His research into the early years of Joseph Smith's
life--primarily in the period prior to the founding of the Church,
including the writing of the Book of Mormon--has been extensive. In
1967 he published an article entitled _New Light on Mormon Origins from
the Palmyra (N.Y.) Revival_. In this article Rev. Walters revealed the
results of his study of a question that had not yet been addressed
fully--_was there really a revival in Manchester/Palmyra in 1820_? Up to
this point most everyone had just assumed that there had been. But, Rev.
Walters' research discovered that this was not so, and laid the
groundwork for later discoveries, also made by Wesley Walters, that
would further demonstrate that Smith's story was the result of an
evolutionary process of change over the years, and that it was not
founded in historical reality.

        The main thesis suggested by Walters in his 1967 article is
this: the revivals spoken of by Joseph Smith as well as other early
Mormon writers such as Oliver Cowdery and William Smith (Joseph's
brother) did not take place in 1819/1820, as Smith's account in the
Pearl of Great Price asserts, but in fact they took place in 1824/1825.
Here is just _some_ of the evidence he presented:

   1) Both Oliver Cowdery (in his history of the church published
   1834/35) and William Smith mention that a Reverend Lane, a Methodist
   minister, was a prime mover in the revivals. Cowdery dates the
   revival as taking place in 1823. Reverend Lane, Walters discovered,
   was not assigned to the Palmyra area until July of 1824.

   2) William Smith also mentions a Presbyterian minister who took part
   in the revivals as well--Reverend Stockton. William Smith's account
   is most important, as it also relates the fact that Joseph Smith Sr.
   did not like Reverend Stockton, and resisted his pleas that he and
   his family join the Presbyterian Church. It seems that Stockton had
   preached Alvin Smith's funeral, and had suggested (at least to Joseph
   Smith Sr.'s mind) that Alvin had gone to hell because he did not
   belong to any church. Why is this important? Because Alvin Smith died
   November 19, 1823--again showing that the revivals had to take place
   _after_ this point in time. Since both Stockton and Lane are
   mentioned, and Lane was only in Palmyra from July 1824 to January of
   1825, and Stockton was serving as pastor of the church at
   Skaneateles, N.Y. until June of 1822, and then was officially
   installed at the church in the Palmyra area in February of 1824, any
   revival in which both ministers were involved would have to have
   taken place in the fall of 1824 and would have continued on into the
   spring of 1825.

   3) Walters discovered the actual account of the revivals in Palmyra
   written by Reverend Lane himself. According to this contemporary,
   eye-witness report, the revival broke out in September of 1824
   amongst the Methodists. It spread quickly to the Presbyterians, and
   then to the Baptists. By December it reached beyond the bounds of the
   town and into surrounding areas. It continued into the spring of
   1825, and basically ended during the summer of that year. Numerous
   newspaper reports of the revivals in Palmyra/Manchester are to be
   found as well. Lane's description matches Joseph Smith's recounting
   of the revivals to a tee.

   4) The records of the churches in the area also show that the revival
   spoken of by Smith took place in 1824/1825. The Presbyterians
   reported 99 additions; the Baptists received 94 and the Methodists
   had an increase of 208. For towns the size of Palmyra and Manchester,
   numbers like these are truly "multitudes."

   5) The records of the churches in the area also show that _no revival
   of this kind took place in 1819/1820 in Palmyra/Manchester_. In fact,
   the records of the Methodist circuit in that area show that in 1819
   they lost a net of 23 members; in 1820, they lost a net of 6 members,
   and in 1821 they lost even more--40 members. Hardly a big revival!
   The Baptist church in Palmyra did gain members--all of 6 in 1820,
   compared to _94 in 1825_. The other local Baptist churches reported
   losses in 1820, while the Palmyra Presbyterian Church reported no
   significant increase.

   6) The denominational publications of the day carried the reports of
   an earlier revival in the Palmyra area in 1816/1817, as well as the
   story of the great revival of 1824/1825, but is _silent_ about any
   such revival in 1819/1820. Are we really to assume that such a
   revival as Smith describes was just passed over in silence by the
   religious publications?

        Much more could be added with reference to the lack of revivals
in 1820, but allow me quickly to move on to even more modern
information. The source of this information is again Reverend Walters,
whose activities of digging into all sorts of old historical records has
resulted in rich rewards--well, depending on your viewpoint, I guess.
Anyway, I won't go into a whole lot of detail on these particular
findings, but as these new findings correlate _perfectly_ with the
previous research on the 1824 revival, I present these facts to you to
show how consistent is the testimony to the 1824 (in opposition to 1820)
revivals.

        The new information from Wesley Walters put together records
photocopied by BYU in 1970, newly discovered land assessment records
from Manchester township, and the records of "warning out" from Norwich,
Vermont. What do these new historical records tell us?

        First, as in the earlier posting, we reviewed Joseph Smith's
1838 version of things, the LDS story has been that the Smith family
moved to Palmyra around 1816. They live there for about two years,
moving to Manchester in 1818. Then, as Smith says, "in the second year
after our removal to Manchester" there were revivals, that being in
1820.

        Recently the record of the Smith's being "warned out" of
Norwich, Vermont has been discovered. This "warning out" occurred March
15, 1816. "Warning out" was a common practice of the day. Nearly all
newcomers, unless they were people of obvious means, were "warned out"
within a year of their arrival. Why? Because the town had the
responsibility of caring for the poor, and, if too many such individuals
settled in an area, it would become a burden on the whole populace. So,
if a family was "warned out" they would not be able to lay claim upon
the town for long-term support. This "warning out" had to take place
within a year of the family's arrival, or the town would become liable
for providing support. Most towns performed this ritual soon after a
poorer family would arrive, and therefore the Smiths most probably moved
to Norwich in 1816 and lived there two years, until 1818. Walters also
correlated Lucy Mack Smith's recollections of this time period with the
weather records of the time and confirmed the conclusion that the Smiths
did not leave Vermont until 1818, the date at which Mormon writers have
the family moving to Manchester.

        The next piece of information comes from the road-tax records of
Palmyra. Here we find that the name of Joseph Smith Sr. appears from
1817 _through_ 1822. As all men 21 years of age and older as of April
were required to be listed, Alvin Smith's name also appears in 1820.
What does this tell us? It is evident that Joseph Smith Sr. moved to
Palmyra _before_ the rest of his family, who joined him there at a later
date. We know this from the fact that Alvin would have been listed in
the 1819 road-tax records, had he been present in Palmyra (he turned 21
on February 11, 1819). Obviously, Lucy and the children did not arrive
in time for Alvin's name to be found on the 1819 lists. It is important
to note that Smith is listed as living in Palmyra _until 1822_--despite
LDS scholars' contention that he moved from there _four years earlier_
in 1818. Don't let all the dates become confusing--if the Smith's moved
from Palmyra to Manchester in 1822, as this evidence suggests, then two
years after this would be 1824, and this coincides perfectly with the
information already presented on the revivals in the area.

        Further information has come to light in the land assessment
records for Manchester township. These records make it clear that the
Smith's did not contract to buy the 100 acres of land for their farm in
Manchester township until _after_ June of 1820, for the tax rolls at
that time show that all of the land was taxed to the original owners,
the heirs of "Nicholas Evertson." However, in the tax rolls of 1821 we
see that Joseph Smith Sr. is taxed for the first time for 100 acres at
$7.00 an acre--the prices of raw, unimproved land at the time. The land
is given the same value in the 1822 assessment, but in 1823 the value
rises to $1,000, a jump of 40%, even though the other land values in the
area only went up 4% in the same time period. This indicates that, for
the first time, improvements were made to the land, including the
construction of a home. What does this tell us? It suggests that the
Smith's moved onto the land and lived there _after_ the summer of 1822
and _before_ the summer of 1823, which again perfectly matches with the
data provided from all sources, especially the road-tax records
mentioned above.

        Land assessment records, road-tax records, records of "warning
out," weather information, Lucy Mack Smith's own writings, church
records, newspaper accounts, eyewitness accounts from the leading
minister involved in the revivals--all pointing to the same conclusion.
Joseph Smith fabricated the story years later, and, to make "room" for
the First Vision without getting rid of Moroni and the golden plates, he
"changes history" and pushes events back by four years. But, history has
caught up with Joseph Smith.

        When we put it all together, it is clear that the Smith family
lived in Norwich, Vermont in 1816. Joseph Smith Sr. headed to New York
prior to the rest of the family, arriving in 1817. In late 1819 or early
1820 the rest of the family arrives as well. They live in Palmyra until
1822, when they move to Manchester. Two years later there is a revival
in the area, which extends into the spring of 1825. This is the revival
spoken of by William Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and, aside from simply the
error in the date, Joseph Smith himself.

        You can see, immediately, some of the major problems this
creates with LDS history. First, the 1820 date is a part of the
canonized Scripture of the LDS Church--if the date is wrong, so is LDS
"revelation." Secondly, if the revivals do not take place until 1824,
and the first "spring day" that Smith can go into the woods to pray is
in the spring of 1825, what happens to the "second vision" that
supposedly takes place on September 21st 1823? Further, Smith says that
he is undergoing this terrible persecution in 1820, yet, if no revivals
have taken place, is he not lying about this "persecution"? It would
seem so. If the "beginning of latter-day revelation" (as McConkie said
above) is found to be incorrect, how can one trust the rest of it?

        If you dig into these things, you will find that various Mormon
scholars have been rather creative in their work of rescuing Joseph's
story from hopeless contradiction. By centering _only_ on one particular
piece of information it is possible to come up with some kind of
alternative to the scenario presented above. But, it is not possible to
honestly deal with _all_ of the information and come up with a
consistent historical story that allows Smith to have the First Vision
in 1820. It just doesn't work.

        Milton Backman, Jr., wrote a work entitled _Joseph Smith's First
Vision_. Clearly, Backman attempts to deflect the impact of some of this
information in his writing. Backman provides a number of appendices,
some of which attempt to provide answers to the criticisms arising from
Wesley Walters' article on the revivals from 1967. For example,
"Appendix P" is entitled "Reports of Revivals Appearing in the Palmyra
Register in 1820." The revivals reported, however, are not in Palmyra,
but elsewhere, and none of them, of course, were connected with
Reverends Lane or Stockton. None results in "multitudes" joining the
churches in Palmyra. It seems that many modern LDS scholars would like
to extend the meaning of "in the place where we lived" to an area
covering hundreds of square miles, so desperate are they to find _some
kind of revival_ in 1820. The fact that the revival of 1824 is so
_obviously_ the same revivals spoken of by Cowdery and William Smith is
seemingly over-looked.

        In the next appendix we find "A Reply to the Critics." In an
obvious attempt to _stretch_ the time periods given by Smith in his
history, Backman asserts that the revivals might have taken place
_prior_ to 1819, and that Smith's "confusion" over what church he should
join may have started much earlier in his life. Aside from the fact that
this results in an obviously _strained_ reading of Smith's history, it
again only deals with one issue, not all together. Cowdery and William
Smith are clear on which revivals resulted in Smith's going into the
woods to pray--in fact, William Smith's account indicated that it was
Reverend Lane who suggested the passage from James 1:5 to Joseph in the
first place! As we know Lane was nowhere near Joseph Smith until 1824,
Backman's suggestion is shown to be mere wishful thinking.

        The next issue presented is the idea that revivals did not
always result in increases in church membership. While this is hardly
ever true, the fact is that the revival of 1824/25 _did_ result in an
increase in church membership, and Joseph plainly indicated that the
converts "united themselves to the different religious parties" to the
point where some of his own family joined the Presbyterian Church!
Simply pointing out that _some_ revivals did not produce great increases
in church membership does not prove that the revival mentioned by Smith
did not. Smith's own words indicate otherwise.

        Later in the same appendix Backman addresses the issue of the
supposed "early persecution" of Smith. A quick perusal of the comments
given shows that absolutely no positive evidence is brought forward that
Smith ever even _claimed_ to have seen God the Father in the 1820s.
Rather, the main defense given is that "circumstantial evidence confirms
Joseph Smith's testimony that in the early 1820's he was persecuted."
But what does this mean? I will discuss in another letter how Smith was
arrested and tried in 1826 for the crime of "glass looking," but that is
a far cry from "persecution" for claiming to have seen God the Father
and Jesus Christ! What "circumstantial evidence" does Backman produce?
The only such evidence produced is the fact that various other
individuals experienced religious bigotry or persecution during that
time period. That's it. Nothing more. And while that in and of itself
might be true, what does it have to do with Joseph Smith? Obviously,
there is no answer to the simple fact that there is no evidence
whatsoever that Smith claimed to have seen God the Father prior to the
mid-1830s. In fact, this seems to be tacitly admitted by Backman when he
writes,

   'While tangible and circumstantial evidence conforms Joseph Smith's
   historical descriptions of events that occurred about the time of the
   First Vision, this evidence does not prove that he was visited by the
   Father and the Son in a peaceful grove in upper New York in the
   spring of 1820. The only route by which earnest seekers after truth
   will learn of the reality of the Restoration is through the guidance
   and power of the Holy Ghost. Faith is a gift of God, and a conviction
   that one of the greatest visions in the history of the world occurred
   in 1820 is one important element of that gift.

        While I agree that faith is a gift of God, faith always has as
its object the _truth of God_. True, Christian faith is placed in the
Lord Jesus Christ, not Joseph Smith or his claims and visions. The Holy
Spirit is the Spirit of truth, and He does not lead people to believe in
that which is in reality untrue. Smith's story must be examined in the
light of the fact that it claims to have _really happened at a point in
history_. The facts of history, however, tell a different story. All the
religious feelings in the world cannot change that fact.

Mark
<standard disclaimer>

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc