Additions to TMD Volume 1

Second Edition Update to Chapter 16

Helen Radkey entered the limelight following her work which exposed the fact that the Mormon Church reneged on its agreement to discontinue posthumously baptising Jews who had been victims of the holocaust. She also reported that the Church had baptised such people as members of the Hitler family; the serial killer, Ted Bundy; and Pope John Paul II. Helen was banned from the Salt Lake Family History Library. She posted the two following reports which shed additional and interesting light on the position of Mormon Fundamentalists in relation to the mainstream Mormon Church, on 2 June 2009.

The Mormon Church And Polygamy: A Double Standard?

SALT LAKE CITY- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints excommunicates any church member who practices polygamy. The Church has publicly disowned Mormon fundamentalists, representing the sects of Mormonism which embrace early Mormon teachings that made polygamy a central part of the Mormon faith-the ongoing legacy of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism.

While the LDS Church says it does not sanction polygamy, behind closed temple doors, and in Mormon databases, many excommunicated Mormon fundamentalists (and their plural wives) have been reclaimed through posthumous rituals for the dead-and, in numerous cases, posthumously reinstated through “resurrected” original LDS ordinances, including baptisms.

Reinventing its polygamous history, the Church is ushering deceased excommunicated Mormon fundamentalists-such as Rulon Clark Allred; Rulon Timpson Jeffs; and members of the LeBaron clan, including notorious killer, Ervil Morell LeBaron-back into the LDS fold.

The LDS temple system is systematically validating the plural marriages of many deceased Mormon fundamentalists who, when they were alive, were excommunicated from the LDS Church because of polygamy. Some of these polygamists have been posthumously sealed in LDS temples to plural wives they married-after the LDS Church officially suspended polygamy.

Why does the LDS Church condemn the practice of polygamy-including the polygamy of Mormon fundamentalists-as the LDS temple system consistently validates deceased Mormon fundamentalists and many of their plural marriages?

© Copyright 2009, Helen Radkey. Permission is granted to reproduce, provided content is not changed and this copyright notice is included.

Mormon Fundamentalists From The Lists Of The LDS Posthumously Baptized.

The International Genealogical Index (IGI) is an index of posthumous ordinances compiled by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). The IGI can currently be found online at Family Search.

All who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they are performed, are guilty of gross wickedness. Bruce R. McConkie-Mormon Doctrine Second Edition.

…Rulon [Allred] said, “We are not able to get into [their] temples, brothers and sisters, because they have us locked out. We’re not welcome in their [LDS] churches; we’re a bunch of scalawags because we believe in the fullness of the gospel…” Ben Bradlee, Jr. & Dale Van Atta-Prophet of Blood: The Untold Story of Ervil LeBaron and the Lambs of God.

A sample list of (20) names of Mormon fundamentalists from the IGI:
(IGI) Baptisms Individual wives listed.

  • Rulon Clark Allred (1906-1977) 5 4
  • John Yeates (Yates) Barlow (1874-1949) 4 4
  • Joseph Leslie Broadbent (1891-1935) 2 3
  • Rulon Timpson Jeffs (1909-2002) 1 1
  • Joseph Smith Jessop (1869-1953) 5 2
  • Joseph Lyman Jessop (1892-1963) 3 3
  • Fredrick Meade Jessop (1910-2005) 1 0
  • Leroy Sunderland Johnson (1888-1986) 2 1
  • Charles William Kingston (1884-1975) 3 1
  • Alma Dayer LeBaron (1886-1951) 2 3
  • Benjamin Teasdale LeBaron (1913-1978) 2 0
  • Ross Wesley LeBaron (1914-1996) 1 0
  • Joel Franklin LeBaron (1923-1972) 2 0
  • Ervil Morrell (Morel) LeBaron (1925-1981) 2 1
  • Verlan McDonald LeBaron (1930-1981) 3 1
  • Joseph White Musser (1872-1954) 5 3
  • Gerald Wilbur Peterson, Sr. (1917-1981) 1 0
  • John Wickersham Woolley (1831-1928) 9 4
  • Lorin Calvin Woolley (1856-1934) 9 1
  • Charles Frederick Zitting (1894-1954) 3 5

© Copyright 2009, Helen Radkey-Permission is granted to reproduce, provided content is not changed and this copyright notice is included.

The two articles quoted, along with other posts by Helen Radkey, including more on the Mormon Church’s broken promise to the Jewish community, can be located at Mormon Curtain.


The above information is now included in all versions of Volume 1. Since publication of the Second Edition, I have added a little extra information to Appendix H regarding the Articles of Faith. This is an update of the content:

Appendix H

The Articles of Faith.

The Articles of Faith are thirteen statements of belief that Mormons generally perceive to have been coined by Joseph Smith. They were derived from some earlier statements, which were actually penned and published by Orson Pratt in 1840, in his pamphlet; An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions. Smith, as usual in his writings, simply plagiarised them, adjusting them to suit his own requirements. He first published them as his in Times and Seasons, Vol. 3, 15 Mar 1842:709-710. See: The Changing Articles of Faith by Sandra Tanner, online resource available at UTLM; also: Tanner 1991:27-28.

Oliver Cowdery wrote a version in the Latter Day Saints Messenger and Advocate in October 1834 and later, Joseph Young, brother of Brigham Young, had a go at writing some articles while proselyting in Boston in 1836. Orson Hyde later wrote some that were similar to Orson Pratt’s version, when he was in Frankfurt, Germany in 1842, in his German language pamphlet ‘A Cry From the Wilderness’. It was in the same year that Smith wrote the Wentworth letter.

Mormons will be familiar with the thirteen articles being in the Wentworth Letter sent to ‘Long’ John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat. A review of the articles will provide some perspective on the religious beliefs and standards of moral behaviour that Church leaders and members were, and are, supposedly obliged to live by, compared with the actual behaviour of Church leaders in the early church as well as today.

The first eleven articles concern aspects of Mormon belief. The last two are important, as they deal with expected behavior. The Church believes in being subject to civic leaders and not just obeying but also sustaining the law. They also believe in being honest and chaste among other things.

The Articles Of Faith have had minor changes over the years. They can be located in History of the Church, Vol. 4:535-41 and the Pearl of Great Price.


  1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
  2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not gor Adam’s transgression.
  3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
  4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
  5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive
    Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
  6. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
  7. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
  8. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
  9. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
  10. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
  11. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
  12. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul – We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
  13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous,and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that wefollow the admonition of Paul – We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.


Volume 1: Addendum.

July 2015. (The last polygamous child).

Page 214 of The Mormon Delusion, Volume 1, contains the following statement:

“Apparently, the last polygamous child known to have been born within the Church was not born until 1931. Henry Smith Tanner married plural wife Colombia Eden Richards on 1 February 1909. Colombia’s child, David Smith Tanner, was born on 19 April 1931 when at least three of Tanner’s five wives were still alive, according to B. Carmon Hardy (1992:419). Whilst Henry died in 1935, all five wives were actually alive at the time of David’s birth and also his death, according to some Family Search records. David is recorded as dying in 1954 at age twenty-three, all five of Henry Tanner’s wives passing on later, between 1958 and 1980.”

Elsewhere, on pages 274, 297, 306, 324 & 348, Volume 1 confirms that such details are just a guide giving a likely picture and they may not all be entirely accurate. “Family Search… family links checked, dating can be very unreliable… Genealogical information sometimes conflicts and details included are those deemed most likely correct… Accuracy of information… is estimated at about 90%.”

David Smith Tanner turns out to be a case in point. It transpires that the Family Search record claiming that David died in 1954 is actually incorrect – he did not die at that time as recorded in Family Search. I was recently contacted by a family member who has confirmed that David and his older sister, Roselyn, are in fact currently living children of Henry Smith Tanner. I was delighted to discover that the last known polygamous child did not die in 1954 after all and am pleased to report that following a long career practicing dentistry in San Jose, California and Sandy, Utah, as of June 2015, David is still alive and well at age 84 and living in Salk Lake City, Utah.


TMD Volume 5 – Update Notes

Subsequent to the publication of TMD Vol. 5 in February 2012, the Mormon Church republished the D&C (in 2013), making several changes to headers and adding a few dates matching some (but not all) of the ‘Joseph Smith Papers, Vol. 2′ corrections. For example:

Sections 39 & 40 headers conclude James Covill was really named ‘Covel’ and that he was a Methodist minister rather than Baptist – not that it makes any difference. Jesus is still recorded as pronouncing an abundance of blessings and promises on James Covill (now Covel), a man Jesus says he ‘knows’, in Section 39. Covill was called to the Ohio in that section but returned to the east the very next day to rejoin his own flock. Section 40 still contains Smith’s feeble attempt at an excuse for this by Jesus – who clearly didn’t know Covill (Covel) after all, even for just twenty-four hours. It now transpires that Jesus didn’t even get Covel’s name or religion right!

Section 74. Is now re-dated from January 1832, to (no specific date in) 1830 and the location has been changed from ‘Hiram, Ohio’ to ‘Wayne County, New York’.

In TMD Volume 5 (p.165), I had commented:

“…Section 74 is dated to January 1832 at Hiram, Ohio, in the current D&C. The JS Papers, Vol. 2:512 & 721 re-date it to circa December 1830, and that calls into question the location, as Smith was in Fayette, New York at that period, some three-hundred miles from Hiram.

The header refers to a conference to be held on 25 January. “Upon the reception of the foregoing word of the Lord [D&C 73], I recommenced the translation of the Scriptures, and labored diligently until just before the conference, which was to convene on the 25th of January. During this period I also received the following, as an explanation of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 7th chapter, 14th verse.” (History of the Church 1:242).

‘History of the Church’ does indeed read that way, following the record of what is now Section 73 which JS Papers Vol. 2 dates, the same as the current D&C, to 10 January 1832. There is no mention of such a conference in January of 1831 in the Sections surrounding that period (Sections 35 to 40), so I am confused about the new dating in the JS Papers. However, as my current work concerns what is actually in the so-called revelations, rather than exactly when they were written, I will leave it at placing Sec. 74 where the Church currently, albeit illogically, suggests it belongs, according to JS Papers Vol. 2…”

With this 2013 D&C change, the Church is accepting the ‘JS Papers’ dating and has also therefore altered the suggested location. It still doesn’t match up with Section 73 details. Not that it really matters.

Section 76. The header to this section previously specifically stated that “It was after the Prophet had translated John 5:29 that this revelation was given.” This has been altered to read “At the time this vision was given, the Prophet was translating John 5:29.” This appears to be more ‘make it up as you go along’ nonsense. As Smith recorded he and Rigdon as “being in the spirit” (v.11), perhaps the Church considers it more appealing to think the vision occurred simultaneously rather than after the so-called ‘translation’.

Section 135 (the one describing what transpired in Carthage Jail when Joseph and Hyrum Smith were killed), was previously attributed to John Taylor, as “a witness to the events”. That idea has now been removed and replaced with a statement that it is an “Announcement of the martyrdom…”, (a statement that already appears in the text of the section) so no one now knows who actually penned this section – or therefore how accurate it is. It could only really have been written by John Taylor or Willard Richards as they were “the only persons in the room at the time” (v.2), but the record is not transferred to Richards so possibly it was a construct – including fact and fiction. No changes were made to the text which still ignores the guns smuggled into the jail and details of the two or three men reportedly shot and wounded by Smith before he was killed.

Various Sections, including 78, 82 & 104. There are a number of header changes which have been altered to include details of the change of designation from the “Firm” or “United Firm” to the “Order” or “United Order”, it being reorganised rather than dissolved as originally suggested. This will no doubt be treated as ‘clarification’. Anyone who has already studied the history of it will be aware of the facts. More details are available in TMD Vol. 5.

Various Sections. A number of section headers previously referenced ‘History of the Church’ (as HC). These have now been altered to read ‘Joseph Smith’s history’. Clearly, the Church wishes to emphasise that it is not just any old history – it is Smith’s personal history, but locations previously referenced are now missing. For example, in Section 77, the header previously read “HC 1:253-255. The prophet wrote…”, and now it just has “Joseph Smith History states…” but we no longer know where it is stated, so you can’t look it up! It is the same reference, whatever you call it, but the information regarding its location has been unceremoniously deleted. Perhaps the Church doesn’t want members reading the rest of JS-History while they are checking references. There is never a note added to explain the fact that Smith didn’t actually write all of it himself – that much of it was written after his death, in the first person, so it looks like he wrote it.

It would have been more honest to have retained the HC volume and page numbers, and at the same time come clean about the fact that Smith didn’t actually write some of it, even though it still reads as though he did. I am reminded of Article of faith 13 (“We believe in being honest…”), and the Church lesson manual which states: “Honest people love truth and justice. They are honest in their words and actions. Lying is intentionally deceiving others. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.” (Gospel Principles 1979. Chapter 31. Honesty). Despite high expectations of its members, the Mormon Church coninues with its own very clear agenda of obfuscating the truth with double standards and perpetual lies. No change there.

Official Declarations 1 and 2. Notably, there are additions to the OD1 & 2 headers, toning down details of the claimed cessation of polygamy and earlier attitude toward blacks. Note the new statement that the manifesto “…led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church” rather than ‘ended‘. This is despite the fact that an immediate cessation had been pledged to the government by Church leaders who would supposedly then cohabit with only one wife each. Modern leaders are of course aware that no such thing happened and that it took over two more decades before the leaders themselves stopped the practice. See TMD Vol. 1 for details of post 1890 Mormon leaders’ polygamous marriages and over one hundred children conceived and born to polygamous (not first) wives of the ‘big fifteen’ – plus details of the prophet Joseph Fielding Smith’s arrest and conviction in 1906 for cohabiting with four women, two years after he published a statement upholding the 1890 manifesto, which clearly didn’t come via any god. If it had, there may just have been a chance that they would have taken some notice of it! The new header to OD1 still pretends the Manifesto was a revelation from the Mormon god – but the ongoing behaviour of the ‘big fifteen’ subsequent to 1890 confirms the obvious lie – and it remains upheld instead of being discarded.

Official Declaration 2 has an additional header blatantly denying that black skin was ever a ‘curse’ from God or that the ‘blacks and the priesthood’ idea was ever doctrine in the statement that “Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice”, calling on the Book of Mormon in evidence of racial equality. Unfortunately, it fails to mention other Book of Mormon passages that confirm their God did at times curse people with a black skin.

2 Nephi 5:21-23 still reads “And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

  1. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
  2. And  cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

Note that 2 Nephi 5:21 retains “white” and “delightsome” despite the previous change in 2 Nephi 30:6 from “white and delightsome” to read “pure and delightsome.” The Church claimed that it was to ‘clarify’ the meaning. When you falsify so-called scripture, it is best to make sure you ‘correct’ all of it so it remains consistent! Otherwise the game is up – and up it is. No god would have any of it.

They also ignore the fact that there actually are “clear insights into the origins of this practice.” They fail to explain that the root of the doctrine remains in canonised scripture. Abraham 1:21-27 & 31 needs no further comment. It is perfectly clear that if Mormon leaders have no idea where the doctrine is derived from, they haven’t read their own so-called scriptures. The Church is hoisted on its own petard. The fact that it is nonsense and there was no global flood or a land for Egyptus to ‘discover’ are ignored here. More ‘Book of Abraham’ analysis and details of real Egyptian history are available in TMD Vol. 2.

Abraham 1:21-27, 31. Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

  1. From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
  2. The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
  3. When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
  4. Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
  5. Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
  6. Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;
  7. But the records of the fathers, even the patriarchs, concerning the right of Priesthood, the Lord my God preserved in mine own hands; therefore a knowledge of the beginning of the creation, and also of the planets, and of the stars, as they were made known unto the fathers, have I kept even unto this day, and I shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me.

A list of the recent ‘adjustments‘ is available from the Church, where further links are also available.

This is the official Church link to page by page alterations to the 2013 D&C. (It is a large PDF file and may take time to load).

There is still no comment on impossible issues such as the Earth having a mere seven thousand years of temporal existence, as recorded as ‘revelation’ in D&C 77. We know through conclusive scientific evidence how old the Earth really is – and also how old the universe is. In fact, information gathered from the Planck satellite, released by the European Space Agency today (21 March 2013), revised the previously calculated age of the universe, extending it by another fifty million years or so. As Professor Brian Cox tweeted earlier today (21 March 2013), “You can’t have a “view” on the age of the universe – it’s like having a “view” on the distance between London and Manchester.” The truth is that clear!

Yet the Mormon Church still remains quiet about D&C 77, just as it does about evolution, and appears to take no stand on such issues at all; in spite of our scientific understanding of the age of the Earth, the evolution of species through natural selection, and formatting of the tree of life through DNA – something that is added to almost daily. Such issues not only deserve comment by the Mormon god through his earthly leaders (rather than apologists who do not represent any god); this god should have explained the way he created the Earth and evolution in the first instance – it should comprise Genesis 1.

In the beginning (if a god was involved), in creating ‘the heavens and the earth’, he (she, they or it) also created the laws of nature – the first and second laws of thermodynamics, relativity, space-time curvature etc., and then set evolution in motion. These laws exist – and they are unbreakable, so if a god does exist, that’s the only way he could have achieved everything that is claimed. By not updating beliefs in line with science – even if that means admitting Smith was a fraud – the Mormon Church is guilty of continuing to expect members to have faith in what is now provable fiction. It is little wonder that so many Mormons are questioning the Church rather than science and leaving the fold in droves.

April 2012

The Last Mormon Polygamist…

TMD Vol.1:213-4.

The last known polygamous marriage, if it can legitimately be called that, within the senior Church hierarchy, was between Apostle Richard Roswell Lyman and a woman other than his legal wife. Lyman, whose father and grandfather had both also been polygamous Apostles, was born 23 November 1870 and was married to Amy Cassandra Brown on 9 September 1896 by Joseph F. Smith. He was ordained an apostle on 7 April 1918 at age forty-seven. Seven years later, in 1925, Lyman began a relationship with another woman, who he had recently restored to fellowship following her earlier polygamous marriage to another man. Her name may have been Roberta Flake, according to Ancestral File. Not trusting anyone else to officiate, Lyman and Roberta secretly ‘exchanged vows’ together, as had so often been the practice during the 1800s. Lyman thus considered it to be a valid polygamous marriage. He continued his role as an Apostle for the next eighteen years whilst, according to the law of the land and also by then, absolutely the law of the Church as well, living in a state of adultery.

Between 1925 and 1943, when Apostle Lyman’s adulterous lifestyle first became known, the Prophet was Heber J. Grant. During that period, between Grant’s counselors and the Twelve Apostles, a total of twenty-one men had been in office, all sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. Four of these men would later go on in their turn of ‘Apostolic Succession’ to become the President of the Church: George Albert Smith; David O. McKay; Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee. Church members are taught that all leaders have the Power of Discernment. That is the ability, especially in interviews, to perceive the heart and mind of the individual being interviewed, determining whether they are telling the truth and if their life is in order and in close harmony with the Lord. This applies not only to the Prophet and the apostles but also to every leader down through to Stake Presidents and Bishops. Indeed, it applies to every worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holder, within the realm of his own family, as ‘patriarch’ of the home. What then is the excuse for these twenty-one prophets, seers and revelators to have missed, for eighteen years, the consistent adulterous relationship of a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles? God did not have the spirit once ‘whisper’ to any one of his servants that Lyman was ‘living in sin’ in an adulterous relationship during all those years. No doubt he personally felt that he was living the true law of God and the Church.

So much for the power of discernment we were all taught exists at every level in the Church. These men were all sustained as ‘prophets, seers and revelators’ yet for eighteen years they did not have the ability between them to ever ‘see’ anything wrong in Lyman’s life. Finally, the truth was discovered in 1943 but not revealed by any God. Lyman and Roberta were excommunicated. They were then both in their seventies. The Quorum of Twelve put a one line announcement in the newspapers, simply stating that his excommunication was for “violation of the law of chastity”. Richard Lyman was the last apostle of the Mormon Church to have been excommunicated. For many years, some of the Twelve feared that Lyman would take up with one of the fundamentalist groups. However, he did not do so and was rebaptised on 27 October 1954 aged eighty-three. (Quinn 1997:183 & n.73-74). His first wife, Amy, did not die until 5 December 1954, so presumably Roberta died prior to 1954, as after all that time, and also being excommunicated, it is unlikely that he would have stopped cohabiting with her during her lifetime. Lyman died, as a Church member, on 31 December 1963, aged ninety-three.

Additions to TMD Volume 2

Second Edition Update – September 2010 (Page 40)

Who did Joseph Smith ever tell about a ‘First Vision’ during the first decade?

Remarkably, since the First Edition of this work was published in 2009, I have come across the following admission by Church historians at BYU.

Scroll down link to: “Orson Pratt’s Interesting account of Remarkable Visions.

“Orson Pratt’s Interesting account of Remarkable Visions . . . [See page 25] ranks as one of the great Mormon books as it contains the first printed account of Joseph Smith’s 1820 vision.”

“Only three manuscript accounts antedating Remarkable Visions exist in the LDS Church Archives, reflecting that Joseph Smith discussed this transcendent vision only privately with a few trusted friends during the Church’s first decade.” (Emphasis added). (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University – Now BYU Harold B. Lee Library).

The three ‘manuscript accounts’ would be Smith’s own 1832 and two 1835 accounts covered earlier in Chapter 2. By reaching and admitting to the same conclusions I reached in my own research, the Church is also admitting to the fact that Joseph Smith completely lied about any persecution which followed the event. If no one knew about it, then there could have been no persecution.

Ergo: Joseph Smith lied (at least 7 times).

History of the Church Vol. 1. (PoGP Joseph Smith–History).

Header above v.21 “Persecution heaped upon Joseph Smith.”

Smith claimed he was:
“hated and persecuted for saying I had seen a vision.”

Lie 1. v.20. “Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy?”
Lie 2. v.21. [Smith met a Methodist minister a few days later and]: “…took occasion to give him an account of the Vision…”.
Lie 3. v.22. “…my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase…a bitter persecution; … common among all the sects—all united to persecute me. ”
Lie 4. v.23. “a little over fourteen years of age … the most bitter persecution and reviling.”
Lie 5. v.25. “I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision … they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me.”
Lie 6. v.27. “…severe persecution at the hands of all classes of men”
Lie 7. v.28. “…between the time I had the vision and the year eighteen hundred and twenty-three … persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends.”