Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claim that during that year there was “an unusual excitement on the subject of religion ... indeed the whole district of country seemed affected by it.”

Sadly for the critics, this claim has not stood up to historical scrutiny. Joseph states that about 1820, religious excitement affected the Palmyra area. The Palmyra newspaper reported many conversions in the area so rife with religious activity it has been called “the burned over district” by historians.

Joseph often attended these so-called “revivals” and “camp meetings” in the Palmyra area. Even a witness hostile to Joseph Smith states that “protracted revival meetings were customary in some of the churches, and Smith frequented those of different denominations.”

Too Common to Notice?

Ironically, evidence for the revivals was less prominent than the critics had supposed because they were so common. Newspapers report the novel and unusual, they do not report everyday occurrences.

One report of revival activity only made it into the local newspaper because of a fatality due to alcohol consumption at a revival campground.

Mention of the “campground” did not endear the paper to the local Methodists, who objected to the implication that this (the location of their worship services) was the site of drinking to excess and a place of gathering by the “dissolute part” of the community. An apology was extended to the Methodists for the error of stating that the deceased individual had purchased his grog at the site of the revival.

Thus, Joseph's recollection of religious excitement in Palmyra is confirmed at the very edge of the spring of 1820, very close to the time when he said he prayed to God about religion.

A Parallel

Critics often wish to place the revival that Joseph mentioned as occurring in 1818. However, even though we know that a revival occurred in Palmyra during June of 1818, there is no mention of it in the town paper, despite the fact that it was attended by Robert R. Roberts, who was one of “only three Methodist bishops in North America.”

Once again, the commonality of such an event did not ensure that it would get a mention — yet, by the critics same argument, this “silence” in the newspaper should mean that the 1818 revival didn't happen either.

Conflation — Could Joseph have Mixed Facts of Several Events?

Some critics and armchair scholars have come to the conclusion that some of the revival story elements found in Joseph Smith's 1838 historical narrative are not really accurate, but rather are representative of a conflation of facts. These people believe that Joseph Smith was actually mixing parts of 1818 and 1824-25 Palmyra revival activities into his storyline about what happened in 1820. In other words, they claim that the Prophet's narrative is not historically accurate — but not necessarily deceptively so.

The problem with the “conflation theory” is twofold:

Conclusion

It is an indisputable fact that there was revival activity in the Palmyra area immediately after the spring of 1820. And there is also evidence of large-scale revival activity in the area surrounding Palmyra during the same general period when Joseph Smith said that it was taking place. The fact that most critics don't seem to be aware of this evidence suggests that they would benefit from spending more time in the library.

The full FAIR wiki article, including all scriptural and academic references, may be accessed at http://en.fairmormon.org/Religious_revivals_in_1820.

If you have any topic or question you would like to see addressed pleased contact Carolyn Wright at http://www.fairlds.org/contact.php Just check the box for the Meridian Article Editor.