Priesthood Restoration timeline - Official church narrative vs Historical timeline

[jfro18]

I mentioned this in another thread, but as I've been researching different topics I wanted to try and organize my notes and also work to include responses from FAIR/LDSanswers/etc along with it.

So this is the first subject I've gotten more organized on - and it is the priesthood restoration. I am going to include everything here (I need too add in as I edit), but to start with I wanted to put the timeline that the church gives to its members vs the timeline that history tells us about the "priesthood restoration." I am going to also add in some quotes at the end as well as FAIR claims that try to debunk the common critic claims about the priesthood.

Please let me know what you think - if the layout sucks, if the info is bad anywhere, or if anything needs to be expanded on. I want to try and do a bunch of these - sort of like what the CES Letter/Letter For My Wife do, but a little more in-depth and also incorporating the LDS essays as well as apologetic responses to try and hit back at the gaslighting from FAIR/etc right away. Thanks!

Priesthood Restoration Timelines:

Timeline of the official LDS priesthood restoration:
May 15, 1829: John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic Priesthood on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in Harmony, Pennsylvania

May 1829: Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter, James, and John near the Susquehanna River between Harmony, Pennsylvania, and Colesville, New York

April 6 1830: Organization of the Church in Fayette Township, New York.

Timeline of the priesthood restoration according to historical documents:

1827: The Disciples of Christ, from which many early members of the Church converted... developed its own priesthood doctrines, influenced by Alexander Crawford, a Scottish minister living in Canada. In 1827, Crawford had delineated the existence of three distinct priesthoods: a patriarchal priesthood (which he also called a priesthood after the “order of Melchisedec”), an Aaronical priesthood (originally held by Aaron), and a priesthood held by Jesus Christ. Crawford regarded Melchizedek as a greater priest than Abraham, citing the fact that Abraham paid tithes to him; indeed, according to Crawford, Melchizedek was one of the key players in the order of the patriarchal priesthood... Alexander Campbell and the Disciples of Christ were influenced by Crawford’s ideas, although Campbell differed somewhat in his conception of the priesthood, arguing that God had given a “priesthood” to the tribe of Levi and a “high priesthood” to Aaron and his sons. Regardless, as one historian has claimed, Campbell taught his understanding of priesthood “to many of his followers who [became] part of the Mormonite community and continued to believe the same doctrine.” (https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/you-shall- ... priesthood)

(Sidney Rigdon was a Campbellite (Joined Reformed Baptist (later known as Disciples of Christ or Campbellite) movement and became influential preacher between 1824-1827.) He later joined the church in 1830 before these priesthood terms were revealed – this is important. (http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/sidney-rigdon)

1829: Joseph Smith claims he was called by the Spirit to restore the priesthood (Grant Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins)

1829: "The Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ" is released in second half of 1829 and is scribed by Oliver Cowdery (also Ch 24 in Book of Commandments). There is no mention of priesthood divisions. (This is not changed until the D&C revelation is changed in 1835)

1830 (April): With the formation of the Church, both Joseph Smith and Olivery Cowdery were ordained simply as elders – there is no mention of holding the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood for either men.

1830 (November): Sidney Rigdon is baptized and ordained an elder (eom.byu.edu/index.php/Rigdon,_Sidney). This is important as Rigdon has been teaching the Aaronic/Melchizedek priesthood idea as a Campbellite, and it is going to be introduced to Mormons shortly after his arrival.

1831 (June): At a conference of Elders, “the authority of the Melchizedek [Page 176] Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders.” (byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-1-chapter-15) This further clarifies that until 1831 the title of “elder” in the church did not equate to priesthood.

It is also worth noting that journals for this conference refer to the ‘high priesthood’ and not the Melchizedek priesthood, further adding to the idea that ideas were retrofitted into church history. (Ezra Booth …was present when the Elders first received the ordination of the High Priesthood. They met together in June, 1831. …While they were there, the manifestation of the power of God being on Joseph, he set apart some of the Elders to the High Priesthood. …The Priesthood was conferred on a number of the Elders."— http://jod.mrm.org/11/1)
Also worth noting that many of the elders claimed spiritual visions like the early witnesses: Others had visions. Lyman Wight bore testimony that he saw the face of the Savior. (http://jod.mrm.org/11/1)

In addition, Joseph himself was ordained to the high priesthood by church elder Lyman Wight. "During the turbulent meeting, Joseph ordained five men to the high priesthood, and Lyman Wight ordained eighteen others, including Joseph. The ordinations to the high priesthood marked a milestone in Mormon ecclesiology. Until that time, the word 'priesthood,' although it appeared in the Book of Mormon, had not been used in Mormon sermonizing or modern revelations. Later accounts applied the term retroactively, but the June 1831 conference marked its first appearance in contemporary records… The Melchizedek Priesthood, Mormons now believe, had been bestowed a year or two earlier with the visit of Peter, James, and John. If so, why did contemporaries say the high priesthood was given for the first time in June 1831? Joseph Smith himself was ordained to this 'high priesthood' by Lyman Wight. If Joseph was already an elder and apostle, what was the necessity of being ordained again?"” (Rough Stone Rolling, p 157-158)

1831: Lucy Mack Smith writes letter to her brother to discuss the beginnings of the new church, but there are no mentions of angelic visits for priesthood restoration.

1832: Joseph Smith first mentions that angels were a part of the priesthood restoration (Grant Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins)

1833: Book of Commandments is released, with all revelations through the release date. There is no mention of a restoration of the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood included in the alleged timeframe (May 1829) section of the book nor anywhere else in the following years.

1834-1835: Joseph Smith first mentions that the angels were actually physical beings – details from Joseph Smith on priesthood move from generic to sharp/specific over time, which is exactly the opposite of how normal retellings typically work. (Grant Palmer, An Insider’s View)

1835: Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery change the wording of earlier revelations when they compiled the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, adding verses about the appearances of John the Baptist along with Peter, James, and John. The Book of Commandments, which later became the D&C says nothing about these appearances, nor is there any explanation for the incredibly consequential additions into existing revelation.

1845: Lucy Mack Smith again writes about the formation of the church, recounts the introduction of baptism, but does not mention John the Baptist or other angelic visits: "One morning …[Joseph and Oliver were translating in Third Nephi in the Book of Mormon] the first thing that presented itself to Joseph was a commandment from God that he and Oliver should repair to the water & each of them be baptized.They immediately went down to the susquehana (sic) river and obeyed the mandate given them . . .They had now received authority to baptize" (quoted in Grant Palmer, "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins", pp. 215-216).

1848: Oliver Cowdery: "I was also present with Joseph when the higher or Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred by the holy angel on high. This Priesthood, we then conferred on each other by the will and commandment of God" (recorded by Bishop Reuben Miller and quoted in History of the Church, Vol. 1, p. 40 footnote). – Why does Oliver’s account not match Joseph’s account of 3 beings?

1881: Oliver Huntington’s journal pinpoints the date of the Melchizedek priesthood restoration on a night after Joseph and Oliver had been on trial in Colesville, New York (Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, 13 January 1881). Joseph Smith dated this incarceration in mid-to-late June of 1830 (History of the Church 1:84-85, 92-94). Wesley Walters located the court bill for this trial, which was dated "July 1st 1830" (Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, N.Y., Court Trials, p.125). This is weeks after the church was founded.

Important quotes about the priesthood restoration:

Richard Bushman: “the late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication” (Note: Richard Bushman is still a believing Mormon, so while he does not come to the conclusion it *was* fabricated, he is upfront that the events do not match the history). Bushman goes on to add "Did Joseph add the stories of angels to embellish his early history and make himself more of a visionary? If so, he made little of the occurrence. Cowdery was the first to recount the story of John’s appearance, not Joseph himself." (Rough Stone Rolling)

Richard Bushman: “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.” (Rough Stone Rolling)

BH Roberts (1902): "…there is no definite account of the [Melchizedek Priesthood restoration] event in the history of the Prophet Joseph, or, for matter of that, in any of our annals…" (History of the Church, Vol. 1, p. 40 footnote) – While apologists have worked to narrow the timeline, there is no recorded date for the restoration of the priesthood or visits from John the Baptist.

David Whitmer: “I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood until the year 1834[,] [183]5. or [183]6—in Ohio.… I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver…”

David Whitmer: “In August, 1829, we began to preach the gospel of Christ. The following six elders had then been ordained: Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowder, Peter Whitmer, Samuel H. Smith, Hyrum Smith and myself …We preached, baptized and confirmed members into the Church of Christ, from August, 1829, until April 6th, 1830, being eight months in which time we had proceeded rightly; the offices in the church being Elders, Priests and Teachers …We were as fully organized—spiritually—before April 6th as were on that day ….In no place in the word of God does it say that an Elder is after the order of Melchisedec, or after the order of the Melchisedec Priesthood. An Elder is after the order of Christ. This matter of "priesthood," since the days of Sydney Rigdon, has been the great hobby and stumbling-block of the Latter Day Saints. Priesthood means authority; and authority is the word we should use. I do not think the word priesthoods mentioned in the New Covenant of the Book of Mormon. Authority is the word we used for the first two years in the church—until Sydney Rigdon's days in Ohio.
This matter of the two orders of priesthood in the Church of Christ, and lineal priesthood of the old law being in the church, all originated in the mind of Sydney Rigdon.He explained these things to Brother Joseph in his way, out of the old Scriptures, and got Brother Joseph to inquire, etc. He would inquire, and as mouthpiece speak out the revelations just as they had it fixed up in their hearts. As I have said before, according to the desires of the heart, the inspiration comes, but it may be the spirit of man that gives it …This is the way the High Priests and the "priesthood" as you have it, was introduced into the Church of Christ almost two years after its beginning—and after we had baptized and confirmed about two thousand souls into the church.(Whitmer, An Address To All Believers in Christ: By a Witness To The Divine Authenticity Of The Book Of Mormon, pp. 32, 33, 64)”

McLellin: I joined the church in 1831. For years I never heard of John the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver. I heard not of James, Peter, and John doing so …[A]s to the story of John, the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver on the day they were baptized; I never heard of it in the church for years, altho I carefully noticed things that were said (McLellin, quoted in Grant Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, pp.224-25).

Book of Commandments 15: Jesus commands Joseph to baptize Oliver, not John (D&C 18). Again, no mention of Aaronic of Melchizedek priesthood or need for priesthood to ordain others.

FAIR Rebuttals with My Comments:

CES LETTER CLAIM: Like the First Vision story, none of the members of the Church or Joseph Smith’s family had ever heard prior to 1834 about a priesthood restoration from John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John.
FAIR RESPONSE: Records indicate that the visit of Peter, James and John for the purpose of ordination was being discussed in 1830.
MY REPLY: FAIR gives *no* sources, the above is the *entire* statement. They later follow up with “The author has no idea whatsoever Joseph may have told his family about the priesthood restoration, because there are no historical documents to support his position one way or the other,” which again proves the point that this amazing event was not spoken of to anyone on record.

CES LETTER CLAIM: Was the restoration of the priesthood "back dated" later by Joseph Smith to justify a desire to dominate the Church?
FAIR RESPONSE: When all the circumstantial evidence is studied, the approximate time of the Melchizedek priesthood' restoration can be plausibly narrowed down. Although historical documents do not give an exact date for the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood we can pinpoint its occurrence to a 17 day window between the 15 and 31 of May, 1829. The window that is known is small enough to preclude a later fabrication of events by the Prophet to "increase his authority."
FAIR continues: Some have claimed that Joseph only began to mention apostolic ordination to the priesthood several years after the Church's organization. Contrary to this claim, there are clear references to Joseph Smith stating he had seen Jesus Christ. Joseph’s ‘conversations’ with the Apostles could be a reference to having seen, spoken to, and been ordained to the Priesthood by the early Apostles Peter, James, and John. Having received that Priesthood Joseph Smith was now qualified to perform healings, and other ‘miracles’. (My comment: Again, no sources given by FAIR beyond this)
FAIR continues: “Joseph learned from Moroni in 1823 that “when [the golden plates] are interpreted the Lord will give the holy priesthood to some, and they shall begin to proclaim this gospel and baptize by water, and after that they shall have power to give the Holy Ghost by the laying on of their hands.”” – (**Footnote leads to a letter written by Oliver Cowdery in 1835** which only further adds to idea this has been backdated)


CES LETTER CLAIM: Although the priesthood is now taught to have been restored in 1829, Joseph and Oliver made no such claim until 1834. Why did it take five years for Joseph or Oliver to tell members of the Church about the priesthood?
FAIR RESPONSE: It should first be noted that many critics ignore versus in the Book of Mormon that refer explicitly to the High Priesthood of Melchizedek such as Alma 13:18. Alma was "confined [to the] high priesthood of the holy order of God..." (Alma 4:20). It is therefore unlikely that these accounts are a pure fabrication since we know that these versus and versus in Mosiah would prompt Joseph and Oliver to enquire about the proper mode of baptism under this authority. We don't know when Oliver first mentioned the priesthood restoration to anyone - we only know when he first put it in print. But consider this: If Oliver was covering up a fraud on the part of Joseph Smith when he talked of receiving the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, then why didn't he expose the fraud after he fell into disagreement with Joseph Smith and was excommunicated from the Church? Why, in fact, did Oliver continue to insist that the events related to the restoration of the Priesthood actually happened?
MY RESPONSE: There are many reasons that the witnesses did not deny their testimony after leaving the church. The reputation of their families would be forever destroyed if they admitted to leading others in a lie, and it’s also possible they did believe they had a spiritual vision as it was very common in those days for Mormons and non-Mormons who saw God, angels, and revelations. Second, the mention of Melchizedek is from the New Testament in Hebrews 7 and is not unique to the Book of Mormon:

1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

FAIR CLAIM: The implication is that Oliver was dishonest, yet his associates during the time that he was a lawyer after leaving the Church viewed his character as "irreproachable". Harvey Gibson, a political opponent of Oliver's, and another lawyer (whose statue now stands in front of the Seneca County courthouse) wrote:
Cowdery was an able lawyer and [an] agreeable, irreproachable gentleman. [18]
Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "irreproachable" as "That cannot be justly reproached; free from blame; upright; innocent. An irreproachable life is the highest honor of a rational being." [19]
Oliver wrote the following to Phineas Young two years after Joseph's death, well after he had left the Church:
I have cherished a hope, and that one of my fondest, that I might leave such a character, as those who might believe in my testimony, after I should be called hence, might do so, not only for the sake of the truth, but might not blush for the private character of the man who bore that testimony. I have been sensitive on this subject, I admit; but I ought to be so—you would be, under the circumstances, had you stood in the presence of John, with our departed Brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood—and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater, and looked down through time, and witnessed the effects these two must produce,—you would feel what you have never felt, were wicked men conspiring to lessen the effects of your testimony on man, after you should have gone to your long sought rest.
MY RESPONSE: Again, Oliver Cowdery can not turn around and admit he had lied to those who followed them. In addition, these quotes neglect that In a letter dated December 16, 1838, Joseph Smith said that "John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris are too mean to mention, so the 'dictionary' comments are really unnecessary here.

FAIR CLAIM: Many ignore that JS mentioned the ‘holy priesthood’ in the 1832 first vision account and that they soften their stance by ignoring that fact.
MY RESPONSE: This is *after* the 1831 elder meeting were the priesthood was first conferred. It again does not mention Aaronic or Melchizedek nor does it mention being visited by John the Baptist and still relies on a generic term of angels. In addition, there are many who believe the 1832 First Vision account was actually written later – it is undated and was torn out of its original book for years which makes that specific timeframe unknown - it could have been written anywhere from 1832-1837. Even still – why is this story still generic years after the church was formed?

FAIR CLAIM: The priesthood was mentioned before 1834 in newspapers:
Painesville Telegraph, 7 December 1830: Mr. Oliver Cowdry has his commission directly from the God of Heaven, and that he has credentials, written and signed by the hand of Jesus Christ, with whom he has personally conversed, and as such, said Cowdry claims that he and his associates are the only persons on earth who are qualified to administer in his name. By this authority, they proclaim to the world, that all who do not believe their testimony, and be baptized by them for the remission of sins . . . must be forever miserable. (MY RESPONSE: Again no mention of the priesthood nor specifics about being ordained with A/M priesthood. This is about baptism and forming a new church).

Painesville Telegraph, 16 November 1830: About Two weeks since some persons came along here with the book, one of whom pretends to have seen Angels, and assisted in translating the plates. He proclaims the destruction upon the world within a few years,--holds forth that the ordinances of the gospel, have not been regularly administered since the days of the Apostles, till the said Smith and himself commenced the work . . . . The name of the person here, who pretends to have a divine mission, and to have seen and conversed with Angels, is Cowdray.” (MY RESPONSE: Angel story was part of the translation/witness of plates/etc. This again does *not* mention priesthood specifically and FAIR is using this as a way to conflate subjects).

The Palmyra Reflector, February 14, 1831: They then proclaimed that there had been no religion in the world for 1500 years,--that no one had been authorized to preach &c. for that period—that Jo Smith had now received a commission from God for that purpose . . . . Smith (they affirmed) had seen God frequently and personally—Cowdery and his friends had frequent interviews with angels. (MY RESPONSE: Again, no mention of priesthood – just of angels. This is grossly dishonest)

Reverend Richmond Taggart to Reverend Jonathan Goings, Cleveland, Ohio, March 2, 1833: The following Curious occurrence occurred last week in Newburg about 6 miles from this Place [Cleveland, Ohio]. Joe Smith the great Mormonosity was there and held forth, and among other things he told them he had seen Jesus Christ and the Apostles and conversed with them, and that he could perform miracles. (MY RESPONSE: Again, no mention of priesthood and no mention of specifics of A/M priesthoods. This is Joseph Smith trying to grow the church *years* after it being formed. This is also a second hand account that mentions Apostles, which is something FAIR would discount if it was the other way around).

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Excellent work, good timeline. I'm digging it.

[moksha]

This makes sense. You build up the Church piece by piece and line upon line till you have a satisfactory embellishment. For many generations, the Urim and Thummim held sway over the seer stone till those killjoy historians put a dent in that story. Years from now we might hear about the miracle of Bednar and the pickle.

[jfro18]

I need to get this formatted in a more visual way, but I just wanted to see if people liked the layout concept... kind of doing it in the following format:

1. Timeline
2. Some important quotes/facts about it
3. Responding the FAIR/LDS Answers defenses of the issue
4. I haven't added this yet, but I want to do a closing section to summarize my view along with what questions this leaves us with

It's good for me to organize my thoughts and I hope maybe it'll help someone else down the road.. who knows.

[slavereeno]

Good Stuff, enjoying the read.

[Culper Jr.]

This is awesome, thanks! This is one area I was wanting to dig into so this is great!

[mooseman]

Id like to see more of the history of whats going on added, as it helps explain WHY Joseph was adding to the story. Ie, antibank fails, called a fallen prophet, competing seer stones, and such.
Understanding this helps give motive to why the idea of priesthood and angelic visitations would be added at that rather than just finally being documented as FAIR suggest.

Overall, very nice!

[jfro18]

Id like to see more of the history of whats going on added, as it helps explain WHY Joseph was adding to the story. Ie, antibank fails, called a fallen prophet, competing seer stones, and such.
Understanding this helps give motive to why the idea of priesthood and angelic visitations would be added at that rather than just finally being documented as FAIR suggest.

Overall, very nice!

That's a good idea - plus it will help with *any* topic and not just this one.

I did look at the antibank fail, and that was after this revelation was in there (but before the 1838 first vision account) so I did not mention that... still would be interesting to see if this coincides with some of the early leaders breaking off or any of the other 'odd' church historical issues.

Will do this tomorrow

[mooseman]

You're right of course. My memory had that stuff a year too early.
You could use events like zions march (1834) and Fanny Algers (1833 to 35) both of which lead to many questioning his call and several leaders to leave or be exed. If i remember any others, ill add them.

[Corsair]

This is a great timeline, jfro18. The only downside I can see is that any believer would immediately be overwhelmed by the extensive and complicated nature of the event. The Sunday School story is so simple in comparison.

[jfro18]

This is a great timeline, jfro18. The only downside I can see is that any believer would immediately be overwhelmed by the extensive and complicated nature of the event. The Sunday School story is so simple in comparison.

I agree - even as I was putting it together I kept thinking "How do I dumb this down more to make it easier to plow through quickly."

And that's the rub, right? On a lot of these issues, getting to the truth requires you to dig in and bounce what the church tells you off what the history tells you and then back off what the apologists tell you. It takes time to really get to the bottom of it, and you have to want to know.

So the goal for me is to get this setup better so it starts with a more watered down timeline with the backing materials underneath. Just not sure how to do that, keep the necessary information in there, and have it be much shorter to read.

[Palerider]

This all looks good. I've read most of it before as well but nice job.

I was thinking that D. Michael Quinn's books, The Mormon Heirarchy: Origins of Power and Extensions of Power supposedly give a well researched timeline as well as pointing out the problems with priesthood restoration.

Haven't read them myself yet but will as time permits. Just a suggestion really but everyone here is probably already aware of them.

[Arcturus]

Love it. Excellent work.

*I'm not familiar with Grant Palmer, but you cite him a few times. Does his work withstand scrutiny? I know he was an outspoken critic of the church so some people will discredit him for that alone (his bias).

[jfro18]

Love it. Excellent work.

*I'm not familiar with Grant Palmer, but you cite him a few times. Does his work withstand scrutiny? I know he was an outspoken critic of the church so some people will discredit him for that alone (his bias).

I think a lot of members dislike him since he's attacking the history of the church, but I have not seen many huge complaints about him presenting wrong info. A lot of his info is sourced like Bushman,, so I think it holds up for the most part.

[TestimonyLost]

Great job overall! Just a couple thoughts. Like Arcturus, I have concerns about the Palmer references even as a nonbeliever. Where possible, I recommend citing a primary source. Corsair makes a good point about the complexity. Leading with a TLDR version might work. Hitting the highlights like "First recorded mention of Melchizedek priesthood" and "Edited Section 20 of the D&C to add the priesthood stuff" to emphasize how late a lot of that stuff was.

I don't know what your ultimate goal with the project is but I enjoyed reading it already! I didn't know about the edits to section 20 for example. Good stuff.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

I would suggest Charles Harrell's book "This is my Doctrine" section on the priesthood and Greg Prince's book "Power from on High" for possible more member friendly references to the same info if that is part of the goal.

[Arcturus]

I would suggest Charles Harrell's book "This is my Doctrine" section on the priesthood and Greg Prince's book "Power from on High" for possible more member friendly references to the same info if that is part of the goal.

I like this thought. Citing Prince's "Power from on High" and Quinn's "Origins of Power" (as suggested by Palerider above) I think would help the validity of your points. I haven't read any of Palmer's work, but after listening to some interviews with him he definitely has a chip on his shoulder when it comes to the church, and that really stands out to TBM apologists.

But it's easy for me to give my opinion on this while you're doing all the work Synthesizing all the data is no easy task. So I applaud your efforts! And what you have so far is very insightful.

[jfro18]

These are good points - thank you for the responses.

Some of the Palmer references are actually unnecessary anyway (in the timeline the changes in Joseph's story speak for themselves), so maybe that's an area I can actually tidy up. I do need to look at the works you mentioned to get more information though - I want this to be as well rounded as I can get it over time.

The ultimate goal for me is to do these for various topics and maybe toss them on a website somewhere for reference to people who are looking for some historical references that incorporate both the critics and the apologetics at once. I will be upfront that I do not believe that FAIR acts in good faith, and part of including FAIR's response is just to show how deceptive they can be in their reasoning (the priesthood area is a great answer where they just outright lie about things).

I just need to get it on a website format to make it look nicer - it's really clunky on here.

[MoPag]

The ultimate goal for me is to do these for various topics and maybe toss them on a website somewhere for reference to people who are looking for some historical references that incorporate both the critics and the apologetics at once. I will be upfront that I do not believe that FAIR acts in good faith, and part of including FAIR's response is just to show how deceptive they can be in their reasoning (the priesthood area is a great answer where they just outright lie about things).

hellasweet!.png (70.54 KiB) Viewed 12285 times

[græy]

I'm late to this party, but this is exactly what I was looking for a couple of weeks ago. Well done jfro18! Three cheers for you!

I agree with the comment about adding some context. Competing seer stones and Alger specifically.

It could also be beneficial to include some of the text that changed as events were backdated, BoC -> D&C. Maybe?

Overall, great work!