My original research: March - June 2012

“It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.” D&C 131:6
Faith does not get to swallow up reason. D&C 8:2

3/3/12

Introduction
My name is Joseph Butler.  I was named after the prophet Joseph Smith, and raised as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints.  This document is intended to be the sum of my questions and research about the truthfulness and the origination of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and its viability in my life, and the lives of my family going forward.  In August of 2006 I started a “what my membership means to me” journal at the instruction of Elder Richard Hinckley of the 70 (from April 2006 conference).  To date, I have written 14 separate items spanning several pages each.  I say this only to demonstrate that I have always found the church to be a source of comfort, inspiration, and camaraderie in my life.  I have testified of its truthfulness to hundreds if not thousands of people over the years, and have felt reassured and content that what I had said was the truth.  I have long held the belief that the comforter can teach me the truth through feelings of peace (John 14:26, 15:26).  I believe that it is human nature to avoid questioning a thing that is ‘working’ in your life.  As I proactively consider my family’s reaction to my questioning whether or not the church is true, I suspect that they will wonder why I have revisited something that I have already accepted in faith.  In summary, it is to address several questions I have had over the course of my life (and in greater abundance more recently) that have been faithfully put ‘on the shelf’ as unanswerable, as well as to consider sources that have previously been dismissed as unnecessarily and excessively contrarian to the church.  I hesitate calling this document a ‘list of issues’ because that sounds too much like I am not comfortable with where I am in the church.  I truly have been comfortable, and largely feel at peace with my membership in the church.  I believe that God expects us to follow what brings us the most peace individually and as a family.  My parents and siblings will no doubt blame my desire to research on my wife, as if she somehow planted a burr.  Emily started her faith inquiry when we returned from Spain (2006), and it accelerated with her calling as a relief society instructor (early 2011).  I have seen her pain, tears, and eventual courage to embrace her new perception of truth late in 2011.  My family’s reaction to her decision ranges from love and support to annoyance and anger. Emily has been cautious about sharing her feelings, research, and opinions, for fear that she would interrupt something of great value to me.  I am grateful for her intentions of protecting my comfort and faith, but I choose to know the whole picture out of love for the truth.  I choose to know because I believe that God values marital harmony more than He is a respecter of religions (Jacob 3:7), and I feel that it would be denigrating to Emily to not give her decision due consideration.    I have always respected my wife’s intellect, and her ability to read voraciously.  She consumes, digests, interprets, and postulates in the time it takes me to crack open a book.  I have largely ignored her attempts to share with me documents that I have heretofore perceived as vicious attacks on the church.  My upbringing has taught me to avoid any person or source that speaks ill of the church, its doctrine, leaders, or history (“bear your testimony and walk away”).  I suppose that my wife has opened my eyes to the possibility of open discussion of relevant facts and an empirical review of data without falling into “crazy ex-Mormon picketing on temple square” mentality (Appendix - Note 1).  In this way, it is because of Emily’s influence that I choose to experiment with a clean slate, and make a more objective review of the church.  I am grateful for her example of courage under the most arduous challenge of resigning her membership from the church that has belonged to her family for multiple generations.  Much like my namesake, I believe that there is nothing to fear in searching for the truth as God “upbraideth not”.  I trust that God can guide my footsteps and mouse-clicks to find answers, and he can guide my heart to question, ponder, and feel truth.


Methodology
As I contemplate how to even begin to do this, or what organizational format this document should take, I believe that the best way to proceed is to list what topics I want to research, or issues that concern me either because I have never understood them, or believe now that there perspectives that I have overlooked or that I have not understood correctly.  I think writing down how I understand each topic from a pre-faith-trial (PFT) perspective will afford an analysis of how my understanding has evolved or needs to evolve.  I will add to this list as time goes on, and until I have made my final decision.  My final decision.  I’m not even sure what form that will take.  I suppose it will be one of the following:

1. The church is true in its entirety; OR plausibly true as witnessed by the spirit to my heart and mind, and my faith is sufficient to overcome the areas where facts are lacking.  The net result being that I stay true to the church, and do my best to keep harmony in my marriage and family despite religious differences.
2. The church is plausibly untrue, but the feelings of camaraderie and social benefit outweigh resigning my membership.  The net result being that I continue to go to the church, and give my children all of the possible data to formulate their own decisions about attendance throughout their lives.  I suspect that this option will be difficult, as the social nature of the church is focused on the family, and Emily has no desire to belong to the social construct of the church, negating a great deal of the social benefit.  Perhaps I could continue to belong for the kids’ sake.
3. The church is untrue enough to remove myself and my children from its influence.  The net result being that I would need to find an alternative method to bring teachings of peace, love, hope, and faith into their lives.

I disclaim my bias to continue to believe that the church is true because it has always seemed to work in my life.  Perhaps I want the church to be true because I don’t want to feel that I have ‘wasted’ years of my life.  Regardless the outcome of this endeavor, I hope that I have a sense of catharsis that what I have done in the past has helped me to be the person I am, and that there hasn’t been time wasted in well-doing.  I recognize that my gut instinct is to question any resource that breathes anything against the church, and to wholeheartedly accept anything from a true believing Mormon (TBM).  It is human nature to start with the assumption that we are right, and treat anything outside of that construct as a potential attack on our ‘rightness’.  I intend to look at resources that the church sanctions and funds (FARMS, FAIR), but objectively look at most resources, both within and outside of the church.  I intend to utilize research from people who have been down this path and chosen to stay (option 1 or 2), as well as people who have followed option 3.


Research Topics

• The First Vision; and the possibility of changes in the account of the visitation of God and Jesus Christ to the prophet Joseph Smith.  (Added 3/3/12)
• The Book of Mormon; the history and circumstances of its writing, the possibility of changes, the witnesses to its divine authenticity, and the literal historicity of the BoM. (Added 3/3/12)
• The Priesthood; its restoration and of the issue of blacks holding the Priesthood.   (Added 3/3/12)
• The Temple; the origination of the ceremony and the garment  (Added 3/3/12)
• The Prophet Joseph Smith; his personal relationship with Emma and other wives, his leadership, his goals and intentions.  (Added 3/3/12)
• The Kinderhook plates (Added 5/24/12)
• The Book of Abraham (Added 5/24/12)
• DNA evidence of the native American populations (added 5/28/12)
• Jaredites and the tower of Babel (added 5/28/12)

The First Vision
Pre-faith-trial (PFT) understanding: I believe that Joseph Smith sought for truth through multiple readings of the Bible, and was encouraged to ask God directly for guidance on the topic of which church to join.  I believe that he struggled with Satan who attempted to thwart him in his quest to ask.  I believe that Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ in the Sacred Grove in physical form.  I understand that JS was prepared to be visited by God, otherwise his flesh would have been consumed.  I believe that JS shared his experience with his family who accepted that he had been visited by the divine.  I believe that in sharing his experience with a few local leaders JS opened the door to severe persecution.  I believe that it was persecution of his claim to have seen God which intensified the persecution culminating in losing his life.

Notes:
This is perhaps the most complete version of the issues surrounding the first vision, with apologists and critics both weighing in:
http://www.mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm

This link suggests that Joseph didn’t relate the account in the first pass at the history of the church in 1835, including scans of original documents: http://www.irr.org/mit/first-vision/1834-35-account.html

http://www.irr.org/mit/first-vision/1838-account.html

"Some one may say, 'If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Saviour come himself to communicate this intelligence to the world?' Because to the angels was committed the power of reaping the earth, and it was committed to none else." - Apostle Orson Hyde, General Conference Address, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.335, 1854

Church Apostle Heber C. Kimball, speaking Nov. 8th, 1857, seemed to be oblivious to any vision where Smith saw God and Christ: "Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come himself and call, but he sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates." (Journal of Discourses, vol.6, p.29)

Church Apostle George A. Smith, Nov. 15th, 1863, preached: "When Joseph Smith was about fourteen or fifteen years old,...he went humbly before the Lord and inquired of Him, and the Lord answered his prayer, and revealed to Joseph, by the ministration of angels, the true condition of the religious world. 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,..." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.12, pp.333-334)

Fawn M. Brodie was one of the first to cast serious doubt upon the authenticity of Joseph Smith's story of the first vision:
The description of the vision was first published by Orson Pratt in his Remarkable Visions in 1840, twenty years after it was supposed to have occurred. Between 1820 and 1840 Joseph's friends were writing long panegyrics; his enemies were defaming him in an unceasing stream of affidavits and pamphlets, and Joseph himself was dictating several volumes of Bible-flavored prose. But no one in this long period even intimated that he had heard the story of the two gods. At least, no such intimation has survived in print or manuscript.... The first published Mormon history, begun with Joseph's collaboration in 1834 by Oliver Cowdery, ignored it altogether ... Joseph's own description of the first vision was not published until 1842, twenty-two years after the memorable event....
If something happened that spring morning in 1820, it passed totally unnoticed in Joseph's home town, and apparently did not even fix itself in the minds of members of his own family. The awesome vision he described in later years may have been the elaboration of some half-remembered dream stimulated by the early revival excitement and reinforced by the rich folklore of visions circulating in his neighborhood. Or it may have been sheer invention, created some time after 1834 when the need arose for a magnificent tradition to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and money-digging (No Man Knows My History, New York, 1957, pp.24-25).

The Book of Commandments emphasizes that it was the Book of Mormon - not the first vision known to the church today - that constituted Joseph's "call ... to his holy work" (24:7-11/D&C 20:6-11).  Consistent with this passage are Joseph's 1832 and Oliver Cowdery's 1835 reports that cite an angel, later identified as Moroni, who called Joseph to the work, rather than Jesus in the first vision.
An Insider's View of Mormon Origins pp. 239.



Conclusions:
I find this statement compelling: “the LDS Church does a great disservice to investigators of its claims by presenting Joseph Smith’s 1838 account of his first vision as the only version of these events. It appears deliberately misleading to offer this account (now canonized as part of LDS Scripture) as an unquestioningly accurate and honest portrayal of its historical origins.”  Joel Groat  http://www.irr.org/mit/first-vision/fvision-conclusion.html  I think the church does a great disservice to its own members as well in its one-sided approach to teaching church history.  Testimonies crash like a house of cards when multiple accounts are brought to light, both from faithful members, and relevant non-member witnesses.  During three decades in the church’s education program vis-à-vis seminary, Sunday school (2 years of which were devoted specifically to the Joseph Smith manual), byu, etc, and the story that I heard, taught, promoted is the official church sanctioned message.  I never heard that it wasn’t until 1835 that the first indications were given of the 1820 vision.  It is unclear to me why Joseph would have withheld the first vision experience from his family or from the members of the church.  I always believed that he had the experience, told his family, as well as outside ministers, and was persecuted as a result.  But it seems that the persecution began later and not as a result of the first vision, but rather largely as a result of what was perceived as fraud in the treasure-finding operation and later because of the doctrine of polygamy.  The tarring and feathering occurred not because Satan incited a mob to get golden plates but because one of the mob accused Joseph of attempting to seduce his sister (Marinda Johnson; later a plural wife to Joseph).  Included in the mob was a doctor brought along with the intention of castrating Joseph.  His pity caused him to shrink from this task at the last minute.

I have no issue with Joseph’s profession as a finder of lost artifacts, however, I take issue with the fact that he would engage in this endeavor, and commit himself to equal sharing if he had known (i.e. Moroni told him where to find plates) that he had a mission to recover buried golden plates.  If Moroni had given him information about the location and the purpose of recovering the golden plates, why would he have engaged in a contractual profit-sharing arrangement in his digging operation?  It seems that the opportunity to join a money-finding crew with sharing obligations should have sent up a few red flags in his mind given Moroni’s message of recovering/translating records with the specific warning that people would try to take them from him.  http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech4.htm


The Book of Mormon
PFT understanding: I believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, accounting for the inhabitants of the Americas.  I believe that Joseph Smith translated the BoM through the Urim and Thummim, and possibly without once his ability to translate was refined.  I believe that the actual golden plates were shielded from view during the translation process, but that they were seen by several witnesses, who attested to their divinity.  I believe that the people described in the BoM were the antecedents of the American Indians.

Notes:
Mormon Stories podcast with Brant Gardner (TBM): Most LDS scholars scoff at the idea that Jesus was Quetzalcoatl.  Joseph is widely believed to have an eidetic memory (i.e. could remember photographically things he read and heard long after the fact).

This website is a very comprehensive analysis of the prophet and the conditions around his writing of the book of Mormon.  Specifically, it asks whether Joseph was capable to produce the bom of his own capabilities, and why he would do so: http://mormonthink.com/josephweb.htm

Grant Palmer’s Insider’s View provides a detailed analysis of the similarities between the book of Mormon story and the Golden Pot and the Ethan Smith View of the Hebrews works.  I find it to be very well done and worth a read.

Gotta love wikipedia!  Here is a link specifically to the View of the Hebrews work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_Hebrews

Link showing examples of places in the Book of Mormon that indicate that space constraints weren’t an issue (i.e. overly wordy for space constrained plates)
http://packham.n4m.org/inotherwords.htm

This link demonstrates that chiasmus isn’t as foolproof, and can happen more often than I used to believe:
http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm#CHIASMUS

This link details much of the biblical writing that took place in the book of Mormon including errors that have been corrected by modern analysis:
http://www.mormonthink.com/book-of-mormon-problems.htm#Bible

This link shows place names during the early 1800’s in the area where Joseph Smith grew up, and how he borrowed book of Mormon place names from his immediate geography.  There are too many to be a coincidence:
http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/holley/holleymaps.htm

This link has an engine that allows you to select pieces of the 1830 BOM manuscript and compare it to the modern day version.  It has links to photocopies of documents.
http://www.mazeministry.com/machine/machine.htm


Conclusions:
I find the story of Charles Anthon to be highly confusing and suspicious the way Joseph and Harris recount the affair.  Either Anthon is a liar, or the encounter did not go as Smith recorded.  That Anthon was an Egyptologist who could decipher genuine heiroglyphics should not be in question as he was the one chosen by Smith to determine their authenticity.  Anthon records:
The whole story about my pronouncing the Mormon inscription to be reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics is perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain, apparently simple-hearted farmer [Martin Harris] called on me with a note from Dr. Mitchell, of our city, now dead, requesting me to decipher, if possible, the paper which the farmer would hand me. Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick—perhaps a hoax. . . . I have frequently conversed with friends on the subject since the Mormon excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained anything else but Egyptian hieroglyphics (as quoted in Mormonism Unvailed, by E.D. Howe, 1834, pp. 270-272 )

The LDS church teaches the story that Anthon attested to the characters' authenticity in writing to Martin Harris but then ripped up his certification after hearing the story of Joseph Smith and the plates. The church attests that this event fulfilled a Biblical prophecy made by Isaiah (Isaiah 29:11-12), as Anthon said to Harris, "I cannot read a sealed book."
Here is the disturbing part to me: If Anthon knew the characters were truly genuine, then he should not have stopped trying to find their source.  If he could translate, and their meaning was “Having been born of goodly parents”, he would have been astounded.  Even if the literal translation had been “Son good parents”, he would have marveled. If he could not translate, but only determine that the characters were of Egyptian influence, I believe that he still would have been shocked enough to investigate how they came to be in the possession of a simple farmer.  Having seen the characters, either he knew them to be real, and he would have tried to find the source; or he would know them to be false, and dismiss the effort as a puerile joke or a malicious scam.  If Anthon saw truth in the characters why wouldn't he have been a convert? He would never be able to dismiss the characters as false to himself. For that matter why doesn't every Egyptologist in the world become converted based on their translation of Joseph Smith’s characters, or the fact that they attest to Egyptian origin.
Imagine a first grader shows a university professor of literature a story written in the student’s hand but which was clearly the writing style of William Shakespeare.  If the student alleges to have found a lost Shakespearean play, and the teacher knows the writing style to be genuinely that of Shakespeare, would the teacher dismiss the student and forget about it? The teacher would pursue the issue because he/she recognized the authenticity of the work. However if the teacher saw that the work was clearly the failed attempt of a first grader to produce Shakespearean work and the child stated that it was given to him by Shakespeare's ghost the teacher's reaction would range from dismissive of the story as imaginative but uninspired, to calling the child's parents or sending him to the principal.

Here are the characters that Joseph copied from the plates and sent to professor Anthon:



Joseph spent most of the time translating using his treasure-finding peepstone with his face buried inside of his hat, and the plates may not have usually been present.  It was more a case of spiritual discernment of the intention of the plates than what we would consider today as strict translation.  The story regarding the recovery of the plates and of their witness has several different versions.  The official story of the plates being found is that of Joseph prying up a stone to reveal a cemented box in which he found the plates, the liahona, the urim and thummim and the sword of Laban.  Others testified of being carried away by the spirit to discern (not a corporal visit, but second sight) a cave-like room deep inside the hill Cumorah that held many treasures, and that the plates were on a table inside the large room.  These different spiritual experiences qualified many of these individuals to ‘witness’ to the book of Mormon (they also relied heavily on second sight for a variety of other activities including treasure seeking and dousing.).  I don’t believe the 1830 concept of a witness follows the objective 2012 idea of a witness.   I suspect that if they had witnessed in their own words independent and without coaching, and were subject to cross-examination, the disjointed nature of their testimonies wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny or corroborate the singular experience that I have always understood as their witness of the book of Mormon.

I find the similarities to View of the Hebrews, and the Book of Mormon too striking to dismiss as pure coincidence.  Even BH Roberts seems to agree that Joseph Smith may have used external sources to write the book of Mormon (http://www.cephas-library.com/mormon/mormon_b.h.roberts_disappointments.html).  Grant Palmer also shows a substantial amount of similarities between the narrative that Smith laid out for the recovery and translation of the plates and the story of The Golden Pot.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Pot

I don’t have a real problem with coins, horses, chariots, and swords.  I can get behind the idea of Joseph as a translator clothing the ideas of antiquity in a modern vernacular.  However, this acceptance may be moot with the other problems I have with the book of Mormon.


The Priesthood
PFT understanding: I believe that Joseph Smith received on two separate occasions the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, and respective keys were restored during those or on other occasions which included other angelic visitations.  I believe that JS taught that priesthood should be given to all, which included blacks, and women on occasion.  I believe that JS used priesthood to bless objects which had healing properties, which was stopped a long time ago for reasons unbeknown to me.  I believe that Brigham Young instituted the ban of the priesthood to blacks because the church was in its infancy and didn’t need any extra scrutiny from persecutors of the church.  BY was possibly somewhat racist, but that was the climate of the day.  I believe that the extension of the priesthood to all worthy male members in the 70’s was driven by the presence of faithful members such as those in Brazil, and the desire to be all-inclusive.

Notes:
Link to an analysis of the priesthood restoration story:
http://mormonthink.com/priesthood.htm

David Whitmer explained in 1887 his disgust at the altering that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery did to the early revelations to suggest the visitation of John the Baptist, and Peter, James & John:
The revelations in the Book of Commandments up to June, 1829, were given through the ‘stone,’ through which the Book of Mormon was translated . . . [The] revelations … were printed in the Book of Commandments correctly… just exactly as they were arranged by Brother Joseph and the others. And when the Book of Commandments was printed, Joseph and the church received it as being printed correctly . . . When it became generally known that these important changes had been made in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, many of the brethren objected seriously to it, but they did not want to say much for the sake of peace, as it was Brother Joseph and the leaders who did it. The majority of the members – poor weak souls – thought that anything Brother Joseph would do must be all right; so in their blindness of heart, trusting in an arm of flesh, they looked over it and were led into error.
(David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887, page 53, 56, 61)

Is it possible that the minds of men can be so blinded as to believe that God would give these revelations – command them to print them in His Book of Commandments – and then afterwards command them to change and add to them some words which change the meaning entirely? As if God had changed his mind entirely after giving his word? Is it possible that man who pretends to any spirituality would believe that God would work in such a manner?
(David Whitmer, Saint’s Herald, February 5th, 1887)

This sentiment by an early church leader is not representative of present day church leaders.  Church historian Marlin K. Jensen acknowledges that Joseph Smith revised earlier revelations:
In some instances, when a new revelation changed or updated what had previously been received, the Prophet edited the earlier written revelation to reflect the new understanding. Thus, as his doctrinal knowledge clarified and expanded, so did the recorded revelations. They were characterized by the changing nature of his understanding of the sacred subject matter. The Prophet did not believe that revelations, once recorded, could not be changed by further revelation. (Marlin K. Jensen, “The Joseph Smith Papers: The Manuscript Revelation Books,” Ensign, July 2009).

Richard Bushman writes of this tendency of Joseph,
He revised his own revelations, adding new material and splicing one to another, altering the wording as he saw fit.  He felt authorized to expand the revelations as his understanding expanded . . .  Joseph once said that Methodists 'have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of the church.  I want the liberty to believe as I please, it feels so good not to be trammeled.'  Revelation meant freedom to Joseph, freedom to expand his mind through time and space, seeking truth wherever it might be . . . The balance between freedom and control makes it difficult to keep Mormonism in focus.  Was it authoritarian or anarchic, disciplined or unbound?  The printed word of God constituted a doctrinal authority that at the same time was open-ended, allowing visionary freedom to Joseph's successors after his death.  (Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 285).

Link to an analysis of the blacks and the Priesthood issue:
http://www.mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm

"I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'. (Apostle Mark E. Peterson, Race Problems - As They Affect The Church, Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954)

Chronology of 2 Nephi 30:6
"... many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a WHITE and a delightsome people." (1830 Edition, p. 117)
"... PURE and delightsome people." (1840 edition)
"...WHITE and delightsome people." (All later translations until 1981)
"... PURE and delightsome people." (1981 translation)
Although the Mormon Church will not make available the handwritten manuscript of the Book of Mormon, the R.L.D.S. Church has the handwritten printer's copy, which was given to the printer to set the type for the first printing. It too, agrees with the 1830 Edition. It reads "white".
So, someone originally wrote "white" (1830) and then someone changed it to "pure" (1840) and then back to "white" (after 1840) and then finally to "pure" (1981).

The Book of Abraham says (1:26-27 and 1:20-22 ) that descendants of Ham cannot hold any priesthood, and that all Egyptians are descended from Ham.   Until 1978 this was interpreted to ban anyone with even a single "drop" of Hamitic (Negro) blood.   Most Mormons claim that they are descended from Ephraim or Manasseh, sons of Joseph, based on their individual patriarchal blessings.   Since the mother of those two sons was Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, priest at On (Genesis 41:45, 50), who was undoubtedly Egyptian, it would appear then that no such Mormon was entitled to hold the priesthood (until 1978 at least, when the church chose to disregard this passage of scripture).

Official Statement of First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951, reads:
"The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.....
"Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression.  If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or allotted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain's transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world."

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." (Statement of The First Presidency on the Negro Question, July 17 1947, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, pp.46-7)

President Spencer W. Kimball described the process through which the church decided to bestow all church privileges upon African-Americans:
"It went on for some time as I was searching for this, because I wanted to be sure. We held a meeting of the Council of the Twelve in the temple on the regular day. We considered this very seriously and thoughtfully and prayerfully.
"I asked the Twelve not to go home when the time came. I said, 'now would you be willing to remain in the temple with us?' And they were. I offered the final prayer and I told the Lord if it wasn't right, if He didn't want this change to come in the Church that I would he true to it all the rest of my life, and I'd fight the world against it if that's what He wanted.
"We had this special prayer circle, then I knew that the time had come. I had a great deal to fight, of course, myself largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood and I was prepared to go all the rest of my life till my death and fight for it and defend it as it was. But this revelation and assurance came to me so clearly that there was no question about it." (President Spencer W. Kimball, Deseret News, Church Section, January 6, 1979, p. 19)

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie explained how earlier statements by church leaders on African-Americans and the priesthood should be disregarded because their understanding was limited at the time:
"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.
"We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept (2 Ne. 28:30; Isa. 28:9-10; D&C 98:11-12; 128:21). We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter anymore." (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, All Are Alike Unto God, pp. 1-2)

From an Ensign article of September 2000 by Alexander Morrison:
"Unfortunately, racism-the abhorrent and morally destructive theory that claims superiority of one person over another by reason of race, color, ethnicity, or cultural background-remains one of the abiding sins of societies the world over. The cause of much of the strife and conflict in the world, racism is an offense against God and a tool in the devil's hands. In common with other Christians, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regret the actions and statements of individuals who have been insensitive to the pain suffered by the victims of racism and ask God's forgiveness for those guilty of this grievous sin. The sin of racism will be eliminated only when every human being treats all others with the dignity and respect each deserves as a beloved child of our Heavenly Father.  How grateful I am that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations."

Noun
racism
1. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
2. The belief that one race is superior to all others.
3. Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/racism

So, by definition, the attributes of skin color (down to “one drop of Negro blood”), indicated that the Negro was less valiant before this earth and hence inferior on the earth, which allowed discrimination of priesthood and temple blessings.  Even if someone doesn’t consider this malicious, I’m pretty sure it’s racism.  I totally disagree with the above statement by Alexander Morrison.

Before the 1978 change, LDS missionaries in the southern USA were instructed to not actively proselyte Negroes, and to stay out of black neighborhoods.  If the missionaries accidentally knocked on a black person's door, they were instructed to tell the person to "Have a nice day, and attend the church of your choice."


Conclusions:
Given the magnitude of the events, it is unclear to me why Joseph and Oliver wouldn’t have recorded the restoration of the priesthood keys precisely when they happened (even privately, as they recorded so many other things), and why it wouldn’t have been important enough to make it to the book of commandments, but did make it into the D&C five years later.  I also don’t understand why Oliver’s account would have Peter, James, and John listed as “the holy angel”.  I understand the argument about potential persecution from non-believers, but Joseph and Oliver didn’t attempt to relay these experiences to the faithful saints, or record the events when they were in safe conditions.  David Whitmer objected to later changes to the Book of Commandments that added accounts referencing the restoration of the priesthood, and saw it as Joseph’s initial fall from grace.  Admittedly, it appears to be more of a convenient afterthought to smooth questions of authority in a growing political and religious organization.

Regarding blacks and the priesthood, clearly the early leadership of this church was extremely prejudiced even to the point of promoting Utah as a slave-state and Brigham Young extolling slavery as a divine institution.  I can excuse this as a foible of Brigham Young the man, and as an attribute which was much more common in their day.  However, church leaders as recent as the 50’s and 60’s were still quoting the pre-existence/valiance doctrine as a justification of a perceived curse and bigotry towards extending equal blessings to all members.  I have always heard the doctrine that those that arrived on earth were valiant and kept their first estate, but this is only after 1978.  I have a problem with the speed that the church adapts to needed change.  I am grateful that one ascended to the highest leadership of the church that was willing to bow to the feelings of his heart (but perhaps also due to great stress as a result of the political incorrectness of the doctrine).  Those that are close to me have stated that they accept the black priesthood ban because the church didn’t need all of the negative publicity associated with racial tolerance in the early days of the church because of the negative PR they had from other doctrines (i.e. polygamy).  I have a hard time with extending that logic all the way to 1978.  I find this argument extremely compelling from Mormonthink: “The LDS Church would have been far more progressive and likely would have allowed blacks to have the priesthood long before 1978, like other churches did, if they were led by men not claiming to be prophets.  They would have been swayed by the righteous desires of the people instead of waiting for a revelation to come from God and not be so tied to the notion that their predecessors were so infallible.”  What other current doctrines (women leaders, full fellowship to homosexuals) should change but haven’t simply because our leaders are tied to a historical statement from someone that they revere as God’s mouthpiece.


The Temple
PFT understanding: I believe the temple to be a restitution of an ancient and divine practice of connecting God with man.  I believe it is a place of peace, refuge, and solace.  I believe the garment was restored alongside the temple as a reminder.  I have heard theories that parts of the temple and the garment are masonic, but have largely dismissed these, as the temple seems much more rich and peaceful a place than any masonic institution that I have seen.  I have been taught that mummies have been found with clothing that relates to our modern day garments and temple clothing.

Notes:
The following link shows the LDS article that was written that ascribe temple clothes to ancient mummies:
http://www.templestudy.com/2008/03/21/early-christian-textile-markings-from-fayum-egypt/

The following link is from a TBM on the commonalities between the LDS temple and masonic ritual:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_masons.shtml

This links suggests a connection between the temple and masonry:
# HYPERLINK "http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/masonicsymbolsandtheldstemple.htm" http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/masonicsymbolsandtheldstemple.htm

This link is by a fellow that seems to be on a mission to lead people away from masonry, and goes through some of the evils of masonry.  It isn’t specifically about mormonism’s link to masonry but outlines masonic grips and signs relative to advancement to different levels in the organization that are rather disturbing to a latter-day saint:
http://www.ephesians5-11.org/handshakes.htm

This link outlines the 1823 book by George Oliver, titled The Antiquities of Freemasonry:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WqNMqwDGas9RR_8G11WWaucWIq74I7rrdcKBVIAg0lU/mobilebasic?pli=1


Conclusions:
I recall being taught about the mummies that were found to have temple clothes.  I was sitting in a large auditorium receiving instruction at the MTC.  The leader was conducting a discussion about the spiritual conversion that we all had gone through, and continue to go through as we experience our mortal journey.  He related several ‘evidences’ that he indicated were “nice to know” but which were unnecessary due to the conversion by the power of the spirit.  I remember agreeing with that logic, but drinking in the spirit of being ‘right’ as he related that mummies had been found wearing robes, some on the right shoulder and some on the left.  The robes had a bundle of cloth at the shoulder, and beneath the robe were vestments that had markings over each breast, the navel and over the right knee but not the left.  I left convinced I was wearing an ancient dressing that connected me to the fullness of the gospel as it had for that mummy in his dispensation thousands of years prior.  After having read the article, and seen the picture, I can say that I am not convinced (not to mention feeling totally gypped!) that this is evidence of what the BYU scholars indicated it to be.  Perhaps there are other photos that substantiate the report that were withheld, but why not share the data?  The purpose of scientific observation is not to withhold something that might substantiate the validity of a church practice.  There is no good reason to withhold evidence, and given that no further reports were made, I suspect that the research team had second thoughts about making those claims.  I am convinced that there are no proofs or research that connects the garment to an ancient origin.

The commonalities with masonry are very disturbing to me.  It appears to me that the temple ceremony largely borrowed symbolism, handshakes, signs, clothing, penalties, and rituals.  I’m not convinced that Masonic practices have ancient origins.  I’m glad that the penalties have been removed from the ceremony, as I would have seen them as a threat.  I don’t know that it was its original intent, but seems to have largely been a fear mongering tactic to bully belief, rather than inspire sainthood.

Kirtland looked nothing like modern day temples.  It was more of a large meeting house, with seating that accommodated divisions amongst priesthood leadership.  I don’t know how it would have served the current day functions of a temple.  I don’t have serious hang-ups about the Kirtland temple, I just find it curious.

I have felt real peace inside the temple.  I love the idea that everyone is equal inside the temple.  Even as I say that, however, I’m persuaded by my wife’s argument that women serve a subservient role in the context of the church and the temple.  They commit themselves to obedience to their husbands, and I feel that my hope of equality cannot be shared across genders in the temple or the church.  How can I want that for my daughter?


The Prophet Joseph Smith
PFT understanding: I believe that the Prophet Joseph Smith was a visionary and enthusiastic leader with a magnetic personality.  I believe that my ancestors loved him, and revered him as a mouthpiece of God.  I believe that through his first vision, and subsequent visitations, that he was called to be a prophet of God to lead the re-organization of the gospel of Jesus Christ on the earth, and suffered tremendous persecution at the hands of those religious leaders to whom the visitation was related.  I believe that he understood polygamy to be a necessary component to the fullness of the gospel, and that he took several wives to himself.  I believe that these were consensual between Joseph and the new wives, and mostly approved by Emma.  I believe that his polygamy was an eventual source of disagreement between JS and Emma, and between JS and others that left the church, but I am unclear as to the details of the disagreements.  I have always heard/used the justification that there were more women and men due to persecution/martyrdom of the male population.

Notes:
Todd Compton’s book, Sacred Loneliness

http://www.mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm

In his 1943 book, Evidences and Reconciliations, Apostle John A. Widtsoe explained:
"Plural marriage has been a subject of wide and frequent comment. Members of the Church unfamiliar with its history, and many non-members, have set up fallacious reasons for the origin of this system of marriage among the Latter-day Saints.
The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seem always to have been more males than females in the Church...
The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States, as would be expected in a pioneer state. The births within the Church obey the usual population law - a slight excess of males...
The theory that plural marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female Church members fails from lack of evidence...
Another conjecture is that the people were few in number and that the Church, desiring greater numbers, permitted the practice so that a phenomenal increase in population could be attained. This is not defensible, since there was no surplus of women..."
Elder Widtsoe goes on to explain the reason he believes polygamy was practiced: "The principle of plural marriage came by revelation from the Lord. That is the reason why the Church practiced it." (Widtsoe, John A., "Evidences And Reconciliation", pgs 307 - 310, The Bookcraft Company, 1943, Salt Lake City, Utah)
An example from the U.S. Census records, which Elder Widtsoe referred to, indicates that in 1840 there were 5,169 males and 4,762 females in Hancock County, Illinois (Nauvoo being the primary population center). Counting just those persons between the ages of 15 and 40, there were 2,067 men and 1,828 women. 1850 Census information for Utah records 6,020 males and 5,310 females.

"The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage, and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it, and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people would be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction." - Prophet Joseph Smith, Contributor, Vol. 5, p. 259

Ann Eliza Young states, "Joseph not only paid his addresses to the young and unmarried women, but he sought 'spiritual alliance' with many married ladies... He taught them that all former marriages were null and void, and that they were at perfect liberty to make another choice of a husband. The marriage covenants were not binding, because they were ratified only by Gentile laws.... consequently all the women were free....
"One woman said to me not very long since, while giving me some of her experiences in polygamy: 'The greatest trial I ever endured in my life was living with my husband and deceiving him, by receiving Joseph's attentions whenever he chose to come to me.'
"This woman, and others, whose experience has been very similar, are among the very best women in the church; they are as pure-minded and virtuous women as any in the world. They were seduced under the guise of religion,...
"Some of these women have since said they did not know who was the father of their children; this is not to be wondered at, for after Joseph's declaration annulling all Gentile marriages, the greatest promiscuity was practiced; and, indeed, all sense of morality seemed to have been lost by a portion at least of the church." (Wife No. 19, 1876, pages 70-71)

The media asked Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the Presidency of the Seventy, some questions about polygamy during Romney's campaign in 2007. The following excerpt is from the interview.
REUTERS: We have one last question and we raise this because it seems obvious that there is going to be a lot more scrutiny of the church. There is historical evidence that suggests Joseph Smith took a 14-year-old bride, Helen Mar Kimball, when he was 38 years old. In today's terms, that would make him a pedophile. Does this bother you or other LDS church members?
CHRISTOFFERSON: It would depend on what all the facts were and the context. In those days, of course, was that it was not so uncommon in the society of the time. Today that would be statutory rape. A different standard applies. What I look to, I'm telling you about my personal approach, is: what do I know through study and through prayer concerning Joseph Smith and at root my witness is that he was divinely called. That's the foundation. Now whatever questions might arise -- as to whether he erred or stumbled in a certain matter -- throughout his life he wasn't perfect. We don't claim perfection in the human being. I don't know what he was responsible to before -- God I don't know frankly. But as to his prophetic calling, his prophetic mission and what he achieved in that goal, I'm convinced of that. So the fruits of what he accomplished I think are evident.

"Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake."
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, First Counselor to Brigham Young, The Lion of the Lord, New York, 1969, pp 129-130.


Conclusions:
As mentioned in the First Vision section of this document, after 3 decades of CES from Primary, Sunday School, through seminary, institute, and at Universities, no earnest attempt was ever made to show an honest, objective, and balanced perspective of the prophet.  I have a right to feel betrayed that the church spends most of its time finessing the official message than teaching that there are multiple perspectives to Joseph’s relationships with women.  Their lack of willingness to address the past rings of fear that lack of control of the message would deter belief.  The church attempts to make polygamy a blip in the overall message of the restoration story.  Joseph stated it was an eternal principle; how can the church expect me to believe it is a minor facet of his message?  How many eternal principles get brushed aside as too uncomfortable to understand?  It is arguable that this ‘fruit’ of his candidacy as a prophet is the one that inspired enough vitriol to cost Joseph Smith his life.  If Satan inspired that vitriol against polygamy, then why would the church shrink from waging that war against him still?  Shall we shrink and shun the fight?  If it is about polygamy, apparently so.

Polygamy was a violation of the law, plain and simple.  I understand the justification that the church members were following God’s law on a spiritual plane higher than man’s law, but it was a clear contradiction with the 12th article of faith.  I have never understood how the scripture in Jacob was reconciled (Jacob 3:5).  The cynic in me says that Joseph’s views adapted to an increasing libido, but the TBM in me would say that you could rationalize that in Lehi’s time, the command was “one wife, no concubines”, but that this command comes and goes.  The idea that the Lord would command off and on would make sense from two perspectives only: a supportive cultural construct to allow it (i.e. ancient Middle Eastern Israel), or a great social need for polygamy.  Neither was true in the church.  If anything, the social environment was extremely hostile to polygamy (Note 2), and the demographic and census data do not support the idea there were more women than men at any time in the church’s history.  One of the biggest problems in modern day polygamist societies is the surplus of men that don’t have opportunities to get married due to the lack of females.  Perpetually single men are often rejected from the society due to a perception of less than righteous attributes (else they would have been assigned a wife), and pushed out by the sheer desire for normal human intimacy.

I had no idea of the sheer number of women that Joseph Smith married (http://www.mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm#other), and am frankly very disturbed that the church teaches that he had a healthy relationship with Emma, when it was very much the opposite.  He is not a role model as a husband, period.  He was good with kids, but even that becomes creepy when you realize that he married two 14-year-olds, and ten women total under the age of 20.  I can’t help but feel compassion and sorrow for Emma.  She loved her husband, and although she wasn’t perfect, I think she was a model wife during the ordeal she went through.  I hold Joseph in a much lower opinion.  I believe that his head was swelling with the influx of Saints praising him as a mouthpiece for God, and that polygamy is a natural result of increased ego and libido.  I don’t think that God had anything to do with instructing Joseph to take multiple wives, and I don’t believe it is required for Celestial glory.

I take even greater issue with the fact that Joseph married between 8 and 11 women who were married to other men at the time of their sealing to Joseph.  I understand the contention that Joseph sought to spiritually tie himself to that family, and in some cases, husbands were agreeable to this.  However, in other cases, there was a mission call and then Joseph snatched up the woman that was left behind (http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/11-MarindaJohnsonHyde.htm).  This is a blatant case of fraudulently using your position as a prophet to ensnare the simple-minded.  To use authority from God as a guise to take something desirable from a pure and humble follower: is there a better example of priestcraft?  That the church simply chooses to state, “Polygamy happened, and is behind us” ignores the tears and sorrow it caused many men and women upon whose backs this church has been built.  The story of Henry Jacobs makes me want to vomit.

I am moved almost to the point of tears at reading Ann Eliza Young’s account above.  Has polygamy ever worked?  Perhaps in a few isolated cases it has.  But across the board, polygamy is a devilish doctrine that belittles the value of the female, fosters a spirit of codependency, and creates a competitive environment in a union that God intended to be cooperative and equal.  I think that Helen Kimball’s experience serves as an example of self-induced electroshock-style therapy: http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/26-HelenMarKimball.htm.  Strap someone into a chair, tell them that 2+2=5, and then ask them, “what is 2+2?”  Administer shocks every time they say 4.  Eventually, they will be broken to the point of believing it is 5.  The spirit of discernment told Helen polygamy was wrong to the point of making her sick.  After those she loved continued to tell her that her and her family’s eternal salvation depended on her acceptance of the doctrine (this would equate to the electroshock), she finally convinced herself that it was right.  How influential the desire to please our family can be on our decisions!  In her own words, “But had this not come through my dear father’s mouth, I should ne’r have received it as God’s sacred truth.”

The quote from Heber Kimball insinuating that the missionaries were taking the prettiest of the new converts before the leaders at home had a fair shake is despicable.  I have always honored the sacrifice of early missionaries that left their homes and families to preach and teach the Gospel in distant lands.  That image is sullied from the thought that they may have accepted mission calls to recruit their own new conquests.

I have always admired John Lowe Butler, the first of my family to join the LDS church, and who was a polygamist.  I am now left to ponder the tender feelings of his wives.  That they were strong, stubborn Butler women I am confident but by definition because his attention was split amongst 8 wives, they were second-class citizens in his marriages nonetheless.  I cannot tolerate the thought that my daughter would ever accept the doctrine that she must become a plural wife to someone to achieve the highest measure of her potential.  I cannot tolerate the thought that my sons would ever believe that they could divide their attention as a husband and father among two or more wives.


The Book of Abraham
PFT understanding: I believe that Joseph Smith purchased some Egyptian mummies in Kirtland, and that some scrolls that were received along with the mummies were translated and some of the facsimiles were shown as proof of his gift of translation.  I believe that these papyri contained the books of Abraham and Moses.  I was not aware that these papyri had been found, and that they underwent subsequent translation using modern techniques.

Notes:
In July of 1835, a traveling showman named Michael Chandler brought an exhibit of four Egyptian mummies and papyri to Kirtland Ohio, then the home of the Latter-day Saints. The papyri contained Egyptian hieroglyphics which intrigued the prophet Joseph Smith. As prophet and seer of the Church, Joseph was given permission to look at the papyri scrolls in the exhibit, upon which he pronounced a marvelous discovery:
"... with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commence the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. - a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth." (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236).
Astounded by their good fortune in finding not only the writings of the biblical patriarch Abraham, but also those of Joseph of Egypt, several members of the Church pooled their money and bought the papyri and mummies for $2,400. After about seven years, Joseph finished the translation of the scroll which he called the Book of Abraham, but he died before translating the Book of Joseph scroll.
Wilford Woodruff recorded in his diary on February 19, 1842 that the Book of Abraham was literally written by Abraham himself. This would make the Book of Abraham the only existing original copy of a scriptural book.  It would also date the record of Abraham (about 2,000 B.C.) to some 500 years prior to the Book of Genesis authored by Moses, between 1440-1400 B.C.
"Joseph the Seer has presented us some of the Book of Abraham which was written by his own hand but hid from the knowledge of man for the last four thousand years but has now come to light through the mercy of God." (Diary of Wilford Woodruff, entry of February 19, 1842, LDS archives; also in Jay M. Todd, The Saga of the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1969), p. 221)
The Book of Abraham is believed by the LDS church to have been written by Abraham himself, as shown in the preface to the Book of Abraham:
"THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM
TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH
A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. - The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."
Beginning in March, 1842, the LDS publication Times and Seasons began publishing regular bi-weekly installments of the text of the Book of Abraham, including woodcuts of three "Facsimiles" of the most significant illustrations in the collection of material that had been with the mummies.  From that point until his death in 1844, Joseph used the Book of Abraham material in sermons, lectures and other writings.  In 1851 it was printed in pamphlet form in England as part of a small collection of Joseph's writings entitled 'The Pearl of Great Price'.  In 1878, the LDS church republished it again in similar form.  And in 1880, the Book of Abraham, by unanimous vote of LDS authorities, was "canonized" as official scripture of the LDS Church.

Much of the original scrolls have been recovered, however some of it was burned in the Chicago fire of 1871.  Modern dating shows the age of the papyri are 500 BC, not 2000 BC.  Apologists for the church say that the Abrahamic text from 2000 BC must have been destroyed in the fire, but they have no answer for why 1500 year old papyri would be unearthed to be re-entombed with a 500 BC mummy.

http://nowscape.com/mormon/papyrus/by_his_own_hand.htm

This link has a lot of information about the Book of Abraham:
http://mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm

The following is taken from the above link:
LDS Egyptologist John Gee, member of FARMS, was a student of Egyptology under Robert Ritner.  What does John Gee's former mentor have to say about the papyri? University of Chicago Egyptology Professor Ritner wrote a fairly lengthy paper in 2003 which is probably the best, most recent and most professional review of the BOA by an Egyptologist, as well as an exposure of the deceitful tactics that LDS apologists use to defend it.
Dr. Robert Ritner, "'The Breathing Permit of Hor' Among the Joseph Smith Papyri," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, July 2003 issue, Volume 62, Number 3, pp. 161-180.
Professor Ritner indicated that his article was written at the request of several sources to "provide an impartial reassessment of Baer's translation [of the Joseph Smith papyri] in light of Egyptological advances in the past thirty-four years." In doing so, he examined not only Professor Baer's translation work, but also that of Professor Hugh Nibley, and Professor Ritner's own student, Dr. John Gee, author of several BOA articles and books published by the LDS Church. Professor Ritner is generally laudatory of Baer's work, but rather critical of that of Gee and Nibley. In addition, Professor Ritner pointed out an unjustified refusal by the LDS Church for customary scholarly access to the original papyri, and Dr. Gee's failure to follow the customary academic practice in Egyptology of having one's former mentor review articles and other publications in draft form. In the article, Professor Ritner noted, "With regard to the articles by my former student John Gee, I am constrained to note that unlike the interaction between Baer and Nibley, and the practice of all my other Egyptology students, Gee never chose to share drafts of his publications with me to elicit scholarly criticism, so I have encountered these only recently. It must be understood that in these apologetic writings, Gee's opinions do not necessarily reflect my own, nor the standards of Egyptological proof that I require at Yale or Chicago." Dr. Ritner also noted, "A customary scholarly request to examine the original Joseph Smith Papyri for this publication was refused by Steven R. Sorenson, Director of the LDS Church Archives."
In a footnote in the article, Professor Ritner noted a 1912 publication of professional opinion on the BoA's Facsimiles which " ... drew uniformly derisive assessments ..." from eight distinguished Egyptologists of the time. Professor Ritner said, "Apart from ad hominem attacks on the Egyptologists themselves [Cf. N. L. Nelson, _The Improvement Era_ 16(1913): 606 ff.: " ... a jury of Gentiles, prejudicial, ill-tempered and mad with the pride of human learning."], the matter generated little further discussion."
Professor Ritner pointed out Nibley's colorful ad hominem attacks on the 1912 panel of Egyptologists. In a series of 1968 articles in 'The Improvement Era', Nibley called A.B. Mercer "a hustling young clergyman;" said that Sayce was a "spoiled dilettante;" said that Petrie "never went to a theatre;" that Meyer "lacked aesthetic sense" and had a rationalistic bent that "ineffectively [sic] disqualifies himself from the jury;" that Brested was "pro-German;" that von Bissing had "an uncompromising loyalty to a feudal society and feudal religion - hardly the man to look with a kindly eye on the supernaturalism ... of a Joseph Smith." Professor Ritner went on to say that "Nibley's tactic has been adopted by his followers. The earlier version of this article produced internet discussions devoted not to the translation, but to scurrilous remarks concerning my own religious and personal habits. Let the scholar be warned."
Below are some excerpts from Ritner's article. Among other items, note that he utterly rejects Smith's assertion that Facsimile No. 1 depicted "Abraham" being sacrificed by a wicked Egyptian priest.
"Smith's hopeless translation also turns the goddess Maat into a male prince, the papyrus owner into a waiter, and the black jackal Anubis into a Negro slave."---page 162, note 4.
Dr. Ritner rejected Joseph Smith's "interpretation" of Facsimile 1 as depicting an attempted sacrifice of "Abraham" by an Egyptian priest by noting that "the most reasonable explanations of the vignettes" [facsimiles] were produced by Klaus Baer, Edward Ashment, and Stephen Thompson, rather than Mormon scholars Hugh Nibley, John Gee, or Michael Rhodes, adding:
"Human sacrifice in Egypt was rare and more properly political execution, never depicted as on the altered Book of Abraham rendition of P JS I.....The early assessments of this material by Egyptologists Breasted, Petrie, Mercer, et al. solicited by Spalding in 1912 remain valid in 2003, despite ad hominem attacks by Nibley, cited by Gee....." Page 168, note 41.
Referring to an article by LDS Egyptologist "Stephen E. Thompson, 'Egyptology and the Book of Abraham,' Dialogue 28/1 (1995): 145-48", Ritner states:
"Gee's brief rebuttal (A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, pp. 40 and 67, n. 17) is unacceptable. Reference to a costumed private individual in the Roman procession of Isis is not evidence that the figure of Isis here (no. 2) is 'King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head,' as published by Joseph Smith.
"Smith misunderstood 'Pharaoh' as a personal name (cf. Abraham 1:25), and the name above fig. 2 is unquestionably that of the female Isis. Osiris (fig. 1) is certainly not 'Abraham,' nor is it possible that the altar of Osiris (fig. 3) 'signifies Abraham.' Maat (fig. 4) is not a male 'prince,' Hor (fig. 5) is not a 'waiter,' nor is Anubis (fig. 6) a 'slave' (because of his dark skin).
"Such interpretations are uninspired fantasies and are defended only with the forfeiture of scholarly judgement and credibility."


Conclusions:
I recall being very upset with the movie Stargate when it first came out because it depicted characters that I had seen on the facsimile in the book of Abraham and that the movie took translational liberties of things that I considered sacred. My pride in my religion caused me to be very vocal amongst my friends about the movie.  I believe that Joseph Smith had a similar pride in the church that he had created, and the tremendous fervor that it engendered.  When the papyri were brought to Kirtland, perhaps Joseph believed that he needed to ‘continue to hit home runs’, and the saints wouldn’t be satisfied with either the answer, “I don’t know what it says”, or “It is a pretty boring funerary text”.  Regardless the reasons, Joseph falsely claimed the scrolls contained the books of Abraham and Moses and wasn’t able to finish the translation of the book Joseph before he (Smith) died.  I should be allowed to expect modern science to validate claims of authenticity in the book of Abraham and corresponding reliefs.  I regard the book of Abraham as Joseph Smith’s personal development of the church and its doctrine.  I do not believe that God would inspire Joseph to lie about the receipt of a document to build up the Kingdom.


The Kinderhook Plates
PFT understanding: I don’t think that these ever made it onto my radar and I was not exposed to this until I sought out an understanding of Joseph Smith’s track record in translation of historical documents.  Reading about the problems with the book of Abraham, I came across this story.

Notes:
Mormon Stories podcast with Brant Gardner recommends reading the Don Bradley discussion at a FAIR conference.  Brant believes that this discussion indicates that the Kinderhook experience may not have occurred, or that it went down differently.

http://www.mormonthink.com/kinderhookweb.htm


Conclusions:
Joseph made a big deal out of not retranslating the 116 pages of the book of Lehi because conspiring individuals would seek to discredit his gift (D&C 10).  The Kinderhook plates did exactly that.  Conspiring individuals demonstrated Joseph’s pride in his belief in his own perceived gift.  I am disappointed that I never knew about this failed attempt to discern truth from evil, and I think it is disingenuous that the church never teaches this as part of church history.


DNA Evidence of Native American Populations
PFT understanding: It never occurred to me that DNA could provide a genetic map of the populations of Native Americans to their originations.  I’m sure that if it had been on my radar, I would have believed that evidence would have conclusively pointed to a holy land origin of the native populations in the Americas, and not supportive of a land-bridge theory.

Notes:
The Simon Southerton interview on Mormon stories podcast provides the best analysis of the DNA question.

Conclusions:
I recall a Brazilian ethnographer telling me of some of his research wherein he found that some of the rivers and mountains had names in native Brazilian dialects (tupi guarani) that were characteristic of Hebrew.  I wish I still had his name, or had gotten a copy of his work.  In searching the internet, I’m unable to find any evidence of linguistic similarities/origins to Hebrew.  Regarding DNA, I do not believe that the native Americans or pacific islanders are related to Lehi, or that the diversity of tribes/languages in the Americas can be adequately explained by the book of Mormon.  I am annoyed that the church allows the promotion of the instruction that Native Americans descended from Middle Eastern originations when there is no science that supports that claim.  Even if they don’t say it from the pulpit anymore, they allow it to be taught and believed.


Jaredites and the Tower of Babel
PFT understanding: I understand that the Jaredites journey began at the tower of Babel where the Lord is supposed to have confounded the languages of the people that were attempting to build a means to reach God.   The people of Jared were righteous, along with their friends, and they were spared and led to the Americas.  I have understood that this journey may have taken place thousands of years prior to the Lehite excursion.  I understand that they used boats of curious construction that were impervious to the depths but also were sophisticated enough to provide air.  The journey lasted nearly a year.  Some of my previously unanswered questions include why the Jaredites were part of the Babel-tower-building project in the first place, if it was an unrighteous endeavor.  I have always dismissed this as a situation where they were constrained to be there, but they owned herds and flocks, as well as had friends and family near, so it doesn’t feel so constrained that they couldn’t leave.  I also do not understand how a single air hole would be sufficient for multiple boats filled with people and animals.  I don’t understand how much water and food would be required for that many creatures for a year, and what kind of logistics would exist for defecation, urination, sanitary conditions, etc.

Notes:
http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?p=225496


Conclusions:
Most modern-day ethnographers and linguists dismiss the reality of the tower of Babel event, but rather see it as a fictional narrative to guide the understanding of the Old Testament faithful.  In 1830, it would have been more commonplace to believe the reality of the Babel event.  The Jaredite narrative brings the tower of Babel story back to the realm of reality, and forces you to believe the tower of Babel if you believe the Jaredites left from the tower of Babel.  I suppose the tower of Babel is as implausible as, say, two warring factions consisting of millions of people destroying one another down to the two remaining generals alone, and no one else … man, woman or child.

The Final Tally
Throughout this process, I have asked myself many hard questions that dig to the very depth of my being.  Could Joseph have written the Book of Mormon without divine assistance, and why would he do so?  How did Joseph inspire so many, including my family, to follow his message?  How could the current church leadership whitewash so much of the history, and subject me to the uncomfortable task of finding skeletons in the closet?  Can I leave the church and ever hope to resume a normal relationship with my parents and siblings?  Can I leave the church and still maintain my friendships within my ward, and with leaders and friends in wards past?  How do I tell old friends, church members, co-workers, or do I just leave it alone, and tell them when it comes up?  What process will I use to replace the opportunities to serve that the church is marvelous at offering, or can I rely on friends from the ward to include us?  What form of religious upbringing will this entail for my children?  How will we make new friends?  How will they make friends?  What if I’m wrong?

I’m sorry to say that I can formulate answers for only some of these questions.

Could Joseph have written the book of Mormon without divine assistance?  The BoM is always used as the basic ‘fruit’ to justify Joseph’s prophetic calling.  Can a person of Joseph’s background and intellect write a book with as much richness of detail without having notes, rewrites, etc?  Setting aside the theory that Joseph used notes inside his hat, the best example of Joseph’s ability to script a doctrinal document is the book of Abraham.  I have encountered many items that can be considered significantly detrimental to the claims of the Prophet Joseph Smith to be called as a seer and translator of ancient records, but none come as close to a smoking gun as the Book of Abraham.  In my mind, it clearly wasn’t written as a result of translation of the papyri, but evidences his ability to weave a scriptural narrative that is plausible, vivid, and flowing.  With a knack for story-telling, and an eidetic memory, it stands to reason that Joseph could hold a tremendous amount of detail in his mind perhaps sufficient to write the book of Mormon.  Why would he have done so?  He entered life the son of an itinerant farmer/school-teacher.  He had no legitimate hopes of grandeur, wealth, or opportunity.  His resources were his creative flair for story-telling, a superb eidetic memory, and a keen intellect.  Logic compels me to believe that his ability to influence people stoked his desire to continue to woo and court followers to ensure the best possible future for himself and his family and friends.  Those he chose to lead and witness had status and importance in the organization Joseph created, and they were loyal to him.  They had too much conflict of interest to be unbiased.

Why would so many believe in Joseph?  To put it simply, and I mean this in the nicest way, people are sheep.  People want to be led back to God, and Joseph had a blend of charisma, charm, and intellect that attracted many to him, along with a powerful message of connection to the divine.  The church offers a society quite unlike any other, with powerful promises of thrones and dominions.  Most missionary experiences show that the most likely to become converted are those that have but little in terms of society, means, or vitality.  The society of the church accepts them with a warm embrace, builds them up, helps them set and achieve goals, and truly reach a higher ground.  It is hard for me not to feel good about what the modern-day church has done in my life and others.

I honestly believe that the church leadership has the best intentions of its members at heart.  They choose to whitewash the history, and accept the official statements and discard all others, because they believe that the thing that will bring the members the most happiness is to get beyond the past, and live for the future.  I can honestly say that I am NOT more happy knowing the things I know now, but it almost always sucks to learn that you’re wrong (except in the event that you are SURE you have cancer).  I trust that knowing and changing will bring about a measure of peace and eventual happiness.  I cannot accept the historical doctrines that are still on record, but not currently taught, such as polygamy as a requisite element for the highest degree of glory.  I believe that due to antiquated theories and practices, the modern-day church promotes codependency of women by inflating the narcissistic tendencies in its men (i.e. you hold the sacred priesthood of the almighty; you have more authority in a little finger than all the nations on the earth) and teaching women that their eternal objective is to be a spiritual puppy mill.  Many will object to this portrayal, with the hope that perhaps Joseph Smith got it wrong, or that their will be additional illumination in the hereafter.  The church promotes dialogue only insofar as it leads people back to the church. There isn't any room for disagreement of a church position without it being labeled as anti-Mormon.  The church frequently states, “The critics resort to old tactics and complaints that continue to be proven unfounded and meritless.”  This is the pot calling the kettle black, but is effective because it inspires members to not see out what the critics say about the church.  If the church invited members to “search out what issues have been raised against the church; here is our position, now go to the Lord and find out for yourself”, I would have much less issue with the church.  I cannot accept the elitism the church promotes relative to the gift of the Holy Ghost.  Members have the right to be led but only if they are worthy. Non members can be led as well by the light of Christ and can feel the holy ghost if they are worthy. The distinction is muddled and I suspect that most people who have religious friends outside the church wouldn’t feel comfortable sharing with them that the LDS form of divine guidance is more illuminated and entitled than the non-LDS form.

Can I honor my parents’ legacy of faith in God, hope in the atonement, service to their fellow being, hard work, and frugality while at the same time reject the dogma and the doctrine that they’ve embraced as Gospel?  I’m not sure that they can ever fully accept my decision to leave, but is that reason to stay?  They may not lose hope that I will someday return, and they will send me scriptures, and constantly invite me to repent.  Can I ever gain their admiration and respect for a courageous decision?  Can I ever convince them that this decision was made prayerfully and in humility and not made in haste?  Will I be lost in their eyes, and seen as a destroyer of my children’s bright and eternal futures?  I do not have an answer to this question.  I truly love my parents, and cherish their examples and counsel in my life.  My mother will be one of the first to read these words.  I am truly sorry for the pain that this document will no doubt cause her.  I trust in her compassion and love to understand that my reasons for choosing to deviate from her prescribed path is out of love for God and the truth, and I have found too much falsehood in the narrative to continue to believe.  I would be living a lie to continue on this path.

I have a tremendous amount of respect and love for those whose lives have intertwined with mine within the church.  I apologize for any pain that I have caused as a result of this decision.  I admire and revere the memories that I have inside of the church.  I understand if my decision causes you to hold me in lower regard.  At the present time, I choose to keep this decision as private as the normal course of events will allow.

I have no idea how I will integrate spirituality into the lives of my children without the rigors of a defined church program.  I suspect that the continued nurturing that Emily and I attempt to give them as loving parents will go far in terms of helping them desire to do right.  We will likely continue family night, and may start reading other books as a family in the evening, scriptural and otherwise.  This will be a work in progress, but we are a creative and adventuresome family.

What if I’m wrong, and the church is true?  What if Joseph Smith was a prophet?  What if he truly translated the Book of Mormon and the book of Abraham?  What if he truly did receive from God the divinely appointed message of polygamy and withholding the priesthood from blacks?  I can only say that if I’m wrong, I have this document that outlines my studies and feelings that I can point to as justification of my decision.  I entered this process with a pure heart to find truth, and the sheer preponderance of evidence compels me to find something better.  I don’t believe I have been hard-hearted throughout this process.  I have prayed as often as I could to know and feel and be led to find truth.  I take comfort in this message:
34 Therefore, whosoever repenteth, and hardeneth not his heart, he shall have claim on mercy through mine Only Begotten Son, unto a remission of his sins; and these shall enter into my rest.
35 And whosoever will harden his heart and will do iniquity, behold, I swear in my wrath that he shall not enter into my rest.  Alma 12:34-35.  It is not my intention to do iniquity.  I have long heard (and preached) that leaving the church causes a person to become dark and shut out to light and truth.  Embracing this doctrine may have a self-fulfilling effect on those that decide to leave, in that they leave, believe they are loathsome, and turn to dark paths.  I therefore reject this doctrine.  Leaving the church can be a demonstration of faith, and I hope it proves to be such in my life.  I have not gone through this process to recover liberties that the church has taken from me.  This isn’t about money or time or some unresolved grudge.  This decision is about truth: past, present, and future.  I have faith that God will lead me to find and recognize truth.  I don’t believe it will come in the form of a church, but rather people.  I have no doubt that I will continue to espouse and apply many of the principles taught by the church.

This poem was shared with me by one of the best professors at BYU, Brent Strong.  I can honestly say that I can look myself in the mirror and believe I’m doing the right thing, and I hope to always be able to do so.

The Guy in the Glass
by Peter "Dale" Wimbrow Sr.
When you get all you want and you struggle for pelf,
and the world makes you king for a day,
then go to the mirror and look at yourself
and see what that man has to say.
For it isn't your mother, your father or wife
whose judgment upon you must pass,
but the man, whose verdict counts most in your life
is the one staring back from the glass.
He's the fellow to please,
never mind all the rest.
For he's with you right to the end,
and you've passed your most difficult test
if the man in the glass is your friend.
You may be like Jack Horner and "chisel" a plum,
And think you're a wonderful guy,
But the man in the glass says you're only a bum
If you can't look him straight in the eye.
You can fool the whole world,
down the highway of years,
and take pats on the back as you pass.
But your final reward will be heartache and tears
if you've cheated the man in the glass.



There.  I’m done. Appendix – Notes
Note 1. I believe the moment that I decided to give non-LDS sources another chance was when Emily showed me Fawn Brodie’s book, No Man Knows my History, and I looked up Hugh Nibley’s, No Ma’am That’s Not History.  Comparing them side by side, I found Brodie calm and collected in her reasoning and logic.  In contrast, Nibley was intent on tearing Brodie down personally (ad hominem attacks) rather than meeting her arguments on a detached and empirical level.  Nibley’s demeanor was rude and completely unbecoming a Christian, a professor at BYU, and as a respected scholar.
Note 2. It is interesting that I have been raised to believe that the church tolerated slavery and racism because it was a fledgling organization that didn’t need to bring upon it the polemics of race and the wrath of the nation.  This is a problematic logic relative to the church’s adoption and practice of polygamy in blatant disregard of US sentiment, largely influenced by Victorian and Puritanical morality.  Why would Joseph open up one Pandora’s Box (polygamy) but disregard another (equality)?  The Christlike one to have opened would have been equality and compassion regardless of race.


This is a remarkable story of a faithful LDS brother that recently left the church (I find that his general story and specifically his list of reasons starting on page 16 very closely match my own):
http://pearceonearth.com/why_i_left_the_mormon_church.pdf

The Mormon Stories Podcast with Grant Palmer and his recounting of William Law and his wife is very compelling, and was perhaps the first instance of disappointment I felt at the prophet Joseph Smith.  Palmer’s research and book (Insider’s View) are very well done.

Another story that is very sad.  http://www.utlm.org/testimony/davemctestimony.htm

This is a good synopsis of issues that I’ve considered.  Surprisingly, I found this list almost at the tail end of this process.  http://www.mormonthink.com/outline.htm. NOTES FROM AN INSIDER'S VIEW:

Insider's View:
10--changed nature of God and Jesus. Had access to a Bible while translating.
11--JST not consistent with older scrolls found recently. Some doctrinal changes at odds with current LDS beliefs. (1 Timothy 2:4)
11-12--Nibley ignores translation and makes crap up instead. Joseph borrowed from Josephus for Abraham story as well as contemporary attitudes about justifying slavery for account.
21-22--Theories in B of A on source of sun's power and progression easily traced to contemporary sources that would have been completely unknown to Abraham.
29--Translations of Book of Joseph show JS was making that up, too. Really funerary rites for Egyptian woman.
30-33--discussion of Kinderhook plates. JS said they were genuine, from Jaredite descendent of Ham.
48--Palmer shows exactly where Bible phrases from the story of Lazarus are borrowed to craft the story of Alma raising Lamoni. Plenty of evidence to show that JS was well-enough educated for the day, and was hugely familiar with the Bible and all other religious issues of the day. Goes on to give side by side comparison of many writings of Paul with passages from B of M. They're extremely similar.
56--"the most popular notion at the time was that Native Americans descended from Israelites."
57--"The LDS position that Israelites 'are the principal ancestors of the American Indians' is no longer probable even if a possibility still exists for the yet uncharted 1-2% of Indian DNA. In addition, there is no evidence that ancient Americans practiced Hebrew or Christian rituals or held corresponding beliefs. . . Given that rate, the B of M provides far too short of time for the complete disappearance of the Nephite-Lamanite language.
--60--Lots of parallels between View of the Hebrews and the B of M.
79 (and before)-- parallels galore between Nephi and Moses. Notes at bottom of page mention Charles Anthon incident happened 1828. 2 Nephi dictated 1829. "No Hebrew text supports this change to Isaiah."
81--in 3 Nephi 50% of the verses have KJV quotations or phrases. The remaining verses are commentary. No original motifs in 3 Nephi that aren't already in the Gospels.
83--contains 26 full chapters from 1769 edition of KJV. Also has modern errors which accumulated in manuscripts over time.
85--Jesus' words to Nephites occurred in AD 34, quoted heavily from 4 Gospels--before they were written!!
90--takes out some Pharisee stuff, but leaves in "raca," danger of the council, and go with him for 2 miles, which are all Old World things that would have made no sense to Nephites!
97--farewell of Methodist preacher very similar to scene and words of King Benjamin, even people gathering in tents, falling to ground with guilt, asking for mercy, being filled with joy. Very typical of revivals at the time. See also Alma, Lamoni and wife, Zeezrom, Lamoni's father, etc.
110--JS was also an exhorter-- person who would come after the main sermon and urge congregation to take message seriously. Examples in B of M: Moroni, Alma & Amulek. Also very common to paraphrase scripture, which also happens a lot in B of M.
111--Evangelical preaching also used language designed to make listeners aware of their fallen state: awaken the mind, everlasting misery, thick clouds of terrible darkness, etc. (All taken from sermons.) Compare with language from Alma, Abinidi, Benjamin, Jacob, Enos. JS very familiar with Biblical and revival language. This is how he was able to dictate book so fast.
118--all major themes of evangelical preaching of the time appear in B of M: paid clergy, don't dig treasure or wear costly apparel, make Indians Christian cuz they're Israelites, New Jerusalem in US, mode of baptism, kids don't have to be baptized, nature of godhead, sin is inherent, wicked will go to hell, attacks on Deism. (Notice that "natural man" doctrine is not what JS preached later in Nauvoo. He apparently changed his mind. Same with nature of godhead. B of M has Trinity. See 2 Nephi 31:21 and Testimony of 3 Witnesses. Abinidi, too.)
130--"After examining the narratives of Sherem, Nehor, Nehor's disciples the Amalekites, and Korihor, (B.H.) Roberts concluded: 'They are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to JS as their creator.'"
130--Palmer's essay on religious feeling and truth.
135--Palmer's comparison of JS's experience of the first vision with The Golden Pot narrative by E. T. A. Hoffman, which JS probably knew of from his associations with "magician" Luman Walters, as well as general folklore in circulation about the area.
165-6--Weird stuff about Joseph claiming he saw and had to fight off "millions" of devils and men to get the plates. Emma's son (stillborn) supposedly would have helped translate the plates.
171--"Interestingly, it is only after the appearance of Carlyle's translation in January-February 1827 that the first full narrative of the angel and the gold plates was reported outside the Smith family."
172-3--Spirit messenger changes into corporeal and more traditional Moroni instead of changeable and often angry spirit. Magical elements of story gradually dropped, becomes more traditionally religious.
175-6--All witnesses of B of M believed in Second Sight--ability to see things with spiritual eyes that were otherwise invisible. Martin Harris saw weird stuff all the time!
179--Both Harris and Cowdery reported seeing the plates in vision before Joseph prophesied they would see them as a group. Whitney claimed that he, Cowdery, and JS saw "one of the Nephites" carrying the plates in a sack on his way to Cumorah, and then later they all saw him "under the shed" at the Whitmer farm. Cowdery used a divining rod. Page had a seer stone, as did two or three of the other Whitmers. Continued on through their children and grandchildren. Smith family well known for treasure digging long before the plates. They would tell their neighbors fantastic stories of the great wealth hidden in the hills. Angels would move it around before they could get to it, though!
191--description of vast numbers of records in Cumorah. "JS apparently believed that what he discerned in his mind was real, especially if one believes the reports of four people who said he told them he could not literally see images in his stone." (Footnote.)
Brigham Young misremembering visions as reality? (See footnote for pg. 192.)
194--Harris and Whitmer both talked about seeing things by the spirit, and seeing things like a 9-foot-tall spirit, charging spectral horsemen, etc. Not uncommon for treasure seeking groups at the time to have such shared visions, and most groups would vouch for their validity even years later. Official statement of B of M witnesses not dated. No specific location given for events. One statement signed by 11 men, not individual statements. Testimony of 3 written at same time as D & C 17, shows signs of common authorship.
197--Statements of JS and witnesses indicate experiences occurred as a vision.
202--Footnote notes similarity of treasure-hunter experiences and modern flying saucer stories. No evidence of psychosis, stories all sound similar to each other (expected narrative), and experiences occurred in the mind rather than in reality.
204--Again, testimony of 8 probably written by JS, and Harris testified publicly that none of the signatories saw or handled the physical records. That was the final straw for Luke Johnson, Lyman Johnson, John Boynton (Apostles), Stephen Burnett (HP), and Warren Parrish (Seventy).
208-9--Plates of James Strang. Not that hard to find and translate ancient records, apparently! None of Strang's followers ever denied their testimonies, either! Many of JS's followers wound up following Strang, including 3 Whitmers, Harris, Page, William and Lucy Smith. Eventually all the living signatories of the B of M except Cowdery went with Strang!
217--David Whitmer said he heard nothing about an angel giving Joseph and Oliver the Aaronic priesthood until 1834,5, or 6. (Long after it supposedly happened, when they baptized each other.) they told him about the baptism, but nothing else. "I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained J & O as stated and believed by some. I regard that as an error, a misconception." --David Whitmer.
219--Received a calling in the Whitmer home and ordained each other at the first church meeting. No angelic ordinations mentioned.
220--"Significantly, teachings on ministerial authority in the B of C mirror what is found in the Bible as well as in the B of M and the B of Moses." (I. E., given authority to preach by the voice or spirit of God, not by other-worldly beings laying hands on mortals.)
223--early missionaries never mentioned authority coming from angelic ordinations. Also, see D & C 18:28, 14:4, etc. If you have desire, you're called to the work. Stories of angelic restoration don't show up until mid-1830's. See also reports of Whitmer and William McLellin.
225--Hiram Page's seer stone convinced many of the Whitmers and Oliver Cowdery that his revelations were legit. If Cowdery had been ordained by angels, why would he have accepted Page's claim to speak for the church?! Page was only a teacher in the church!!
226--1st public mention of angelic authority given by JS on 12 Feb. 1834. Not until Cowdery gives account in 7 Sept. 1834 letter that actual (unnamed!) angel puts hands on their heads, though.
227--Language JS and Cowdery used to tell about the event suggests spiritual rather than physical experience again. They were also facing a credibility crisis at the time that threatened the church's survival, and authority (pretending to have it) was an issue. This was when Hurlbut was hired to discredit JS. Also right after Zion's Camp fiasco. Cowdery starts his own PR campaign to fight Hurlbut's, and mentions angel. It wasn't until shortly after that that the angel becomes John the Baptist. At the same time, a statement about Peter, James, and John appearing was added to D & C 27:8, 12-13. (Verses about John, etc. plus 2 in section 7 about John are not in 1833 Book of C.) Events slowly became more detailed and miraculous. No contemporary narrative exists for the visitation. No date, location, ordination prayer, or any other details known.
231--Howe's book was a threat, and "only true church" claim had to be backed up, so retrofitting the B of C to include angelic restoration of authority solved both problems.
232--Don't let apologists try to tell you about Book of Patriarchal Blessings recording early version of authority, either. Oliver Cowdery went back and added a lot of stuff.
235--Nothing in B of C about 1st vision, how B of M came forth, restoration of priesthood, or accounts of B of M witnesses. Earliest allusion to vision was transcribed in June 1830. Talks about "remission of sins." Nothing about a vision. B of C says it was B of M that was JS's call to the work, not a vision, and JS and Cowdery's early report talk about an angel, later identified as Moroni, who called, not Jesus. Not uncommon for those going into Protestant ministry to claim a vision in their youth. JS viewed his getting forgiven in that light until 1838. Even in 1832 and 1835 narratives, he doesn't mention God, his divine appointment as prophet, or his commission to open the last dispensation. There's problems with his recollections of the revival dates, too. If he had a visit from God in 1820 telling him no churches were true, then why were his mother and brother joining the Protestants in 1824?! There were no revivals going on in Palmyra between 1818 and 1821. JS squished his 1820 epiphany together with the revival excitement.
244--JS was "persecuted," but not for talking about his vision. It was for talking about treasure digging and eventually the gold plates! No one, friend or foe, remembers either the persecution or his claims to have had a vision. Not even his family. Neither JS nor anyone else prior to 1838 referred to vision as the source of his authority. At this time (1837 on) there was a leadership crisis, and JS needed to back up his authority.
251--When JS rewrites his history in 1838, the calling from an angel becomes a calling from God. (Even though he'd been saying angel for more than a decade!) He also gives different motivation for his initial prayer. In 1832, it's all about forgiveness of sins. Jesus tells him his sins are forgiven, and there is no mention of doctrinal corruption. No injunction against other churches. By 1838, he's asking which church he should join. But Joseph became a Methodist exhorter and went to revivals while several family members became Presbyterians until 1828! The 1832 account reflects the religious behavior of the Smiths more accurately.


NOTES FROM NO MAN KNOWS MY HISTORY:

23--JS claims he was persecuted after 1st Vision, but no contemporary accounts (newspapers) mention it at all.
24--Big differences in accounts. Age (13, 16, 17, etc.), # of "personages" and their identity, presence of "many angels." His mother and brothers kept going to Pres. church until 1828. (Vision supposedly happened in 1820. Lucy wrote her brother in 1831 about the church, never mentioned 1st Vision. Cowdery said visions began in '23 with Moroni, and family members later confused that with 1st Vision. (And sometimes said it was Nephi.) When Lucy wrote her biography, she quotes from published history of vision, not her own words.
75--Getting the plates from Harmony to Fayette was apparently accomplished by an angel in disguise! David Whitmer and JS passed an old man with a sack, and JS said it was Moroni delivering the plates!
77--Statement of 3 Witnesses drawn up by JS, merely signed by men. Local press said all 3 told a different version of what happened.
78--Martin Harris said later that he saw the plates "with the eye of faith." Also said they were covered with a cloth. Not until he was an old man did he claim he saw an angel turn the pages.  David Whitmer said plates were lying in an open field. Again, it was later that he claimed he'd seen brass plates, sword of Laban, Liahona' etc.
79--Brodie claims some of the"key men" (not sure who) who later left the church were told to pray, then shown an empty box. When they said it was empty, they were told to repent, and then made to pray for 2 more hours.
81--JS looks into Urim and Thummim and tells Cowdery and Hiram Page to go to Toronto, where they would find a man to buy the copyright to print B of M. They went. Didn't find anybody.
Martin Harris claimed he saw Jesus as a deer walking beside him. Talked to him. Described devil and prophesied that Palmyra would be destroyed by 1836, and that the church would be so large by 1838 there would be no need for the president of the USA.
85--Audience was gullible. Mary Elizabeth Rollins saw JS when she was 13 and said his face was like a candle. JS claimed Christ had been in their midst at that meeting, but no one else saw him. Obviously a lot of hero worship going on.
86--"He had no idea how common were such occurrences (The faith-healing of Newel Knight's 'possesion'.) He was as unsophisticated as the rest of the village about mental therapy."
89--Emma begged JS to support her by the usual means, but he went over her objections with revelations. She held out 6 weeks after the church was organized before being baptized.
95--Rigdon was prone to "nervous spasms and swoonings" that he believed were the Holy Ghost. Campbell wrote that when Rigdon heard about the church, he "fasted and prayed for days, when one of his fits of swooning and sighing came upon him, he saw an angel and was converted."
101-2--JS promised Lyman Johnson that he should "see the Saviour come and stand upon the earth with power and great glory." William Smith and Orson Hyde were told that they would "stand on earth and bring souls til Christ comes."
111--JS promised "not 3 days should pass away before some should see the Savior face to face." (Ezra Booth. Did leave church because of disillusionment.)
--JS told assembly that the Lost 10 Tribes "lived in a land contiguous to the north pole, separated from the rest of the world by impassable mountains of ice and snow."
--Also announced Melchizedek priesthood at this time. May have been influenced by James Gray's book. JS was familiar with his work.
111-112--Weird scene of Lyman Wright claiming to see Jesus, then someone went deaf and dumb until JS healed him, and then everyone went nuts! JS tried to heal a crippled hand and failed. Tried to heal a lame man and failed. Then parents brought in a dead child, who stayed quite dead. Parents reproached elders for previously advising against medical aid.
139--JS condemns church through revelation to explain why they were cast out of Zion. Phelps was hurt by this injustice: "I know it was right that we should be driven out of Zion that the rebellious might be sent away. But brethren, if the Lord will, I should like to know what the honest in heart should do?"
140--JS forbids everyone from selling their property in Jackson County. He didn't understand how opposed the settlers really were. Sends a petition to Andrew Jackson, along with a revelation that promises that the Lord will "vex the nation" if the Mormons aren't helped.
141--JS begins dismantling the Kirtland Order, which never worked. Revised drastically in enlarged D &C in 1835. Missionaries commanded to "destroy the notion abroad that the church had ever been a common-stock concern."
146--JS gets hyped up by Wight and P.P. Pratt and has a revelation that "the redemption of Zion must needs come by power." (See D &C 103.)
147--Rigdon sends army off with promised of victory and glory.
157--"JS lacked one useful capacity of a natural leader; he was unable to gauge the repercussions of his policies on the opposition. Strategically, the whole concept of Zion's Camp had been a mistake." It was like poking a hornet's nest! The army was told that someday Zion will still be theirs. Trial of faith.
158--"Unofficial" promise that within 3 years they'd retake Jackson County without any trouble. Official date set for Sept. 11, 1836.  Never happened.
162--JS asserts his power over the 12. "Soon it was officially announced that an insult to JS would be considered 'an insult to the whole body,' and the High Council saw to it that this rule was respected." (Henry Green was cut off from the church for saying privately that JS had charged him too much for a book!) "Basically, therefore, the church organization remained autocratic. Only the trappings were democratic."