Conflict and Displacement of Hopewellian People In the 4th Century in Western New York
Draft 02/24/18 – Focus of Research in the Heartland of North America- Prepared by Dr. John Lefgren
All serious conflict results in the displacement of people. Indeed, much of the movement of people in the ancient as well as the modern world is the result of conflict. The proposed research would examine the movements and the encampments of the Hopewellian people who were in conflict in Western New York during the late 4th century. The paper examines associated themes such as the dislocation and displacement of people who came from the river valleys of Ohio and Illinois. There would be a review of the accounts by the first Europeans of fortifications and artifacts of war including bones of a people who were in Western New York a thousand years before Columbus. The research would examine sites where the archaeological record shows artifacts from the rich agricultural lands of the Mississippi river valleys. The research would examine various aspects of ancient life in these sites and their particular ‘wilderness’ settings, framing the discussion within the themes of movements and dislocations, and especially their multiple impacts on the Hopewellian people who came to a land removed from their origins. A particular emphasis for the research would be movements and dislocations of people in conflict. The Hopewellian people became in effect ‘stuck’ in the northeastern wilderness. The inhabitants of these ancient sites were in conflict and they coped with the situation as well as they could. The conflict is reflected in the different features of the sites and the archaeological material which the fieldwork produces. The research would focus on how conflict pushed the Hopewellian people from one region to another. The research will compare the multi-generational construction of large and numerous earthworks of these people in Ohio to the immediate construction of hundreds of fortifications in Western New York. Considering the displacement of people in our time the research will note how conflicts have pushed hundreds of millions of people from one region to another in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent and Asia. In this context the research examines how in the ancient world one conflict pushed one people from the Heartland of America into the northeastern lands of Western New York.
Purchase Dr Lefgren’s Book and DVD Below!
Lands, Peoples, and Armies In Ancient America During the Fourth Century
John C. Lefgren, PhD March 7, 2017
Statement of Thesis
This paper supports the Heartland Geography for the lands of the Book of Mormon. The primary arguments are based on the knowledge (1) that large armies need large populations, (2) that large populations need large amounts of food, and (3) that large amounts of food need large amounts of land and water. The historic setting for the Book of Mormon is a place which is epic in size and significant in location. Moroni confirmed the grandeur of his people. Moroni’s father, Mormon, was the leader of armies which were larger than those under the command of George Washington. The armies of Mormon operated in areas which were comparable to those of Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee. The history of this true story entails 1,500,000 square miles where the waters of the Mississippi and St. Lawrence flow.
Mormon wrote in AD 385 that he had under his command 230,000 men. He placed his armies in defensive positions because his armies were numerically less than his opposition. In the final battles, the two sides had more than 500,000 combatants. This war required huge amounts of material and food. The methods of production were pre-industrial. In the final stages of the war the combatants needed more than 1,000,000 tons of food and supplies per year. How did these nations organize themselves? Does pre-modern history in other parts of the world help us to understand what Mormon experienced? These are the important questions of this paper.
The conclusion of the study is that in the final battles of the late fourth century the Lamanite armies had
access to the resources of the world’s largest contiguous arable land while the Nephite armies had access to the resources of the world’s largest system of fresh water lakes. The Mississippi Basin has an area of about 1,000,000 square miles and the St. Lawrence Basin has an area of about 500,000 square miles. The study explains that the theory of war for a large theater of operation gave good reasons why Mormon would gather the Nephite armies into defensive positions near the southern shores of Lake Ontario.
The final battles of the Book of Mormon required the resources of the basins of the Mississippi River and the St. Lawrence River. In the battle of AD 385 there were combatants who came from the 31 states which are connected to the Mississippi as well as from the 9 states and 6 provinces which are connected to the St. Lawrence. The armies of the Lamanites destroyed the armies of the Nephites. The final battles required more than 1,000,000 tons of food and material which were produced by a population of about 30,000,000 who were working in an area of 1,500,000 square miles. The men and material necessary to execute this war were moved on the major waterways of North America.
Given available historical sources, it is possible to estimate how lands, waterways, people and armies were interrelated in the pre-modern societies of Europe and Asia. These interrelationships help to establish how similar parameters related to people who were preparing for battle in North America in AD 380.
Large or Small
After making its thesis known, the study now frames these questions. Where did the events of the Book of Mormon take place? Were they on the large stage of Heartland Geography or on the small stage of Limited Geography? Heartland Geography places the book’s history on lands which can support the large armies of the Book of Mormon. The Limited Geography tries to place the events of the Book of Mormon into a small space which would never have been sufficient to support large armies.
John Sorenson, the most ardent defender of Limited Geography, wrote in the Ensign in 1984 that “the
immediate land covered by the book’s events was probably only hundreds rather than thousands of miles long and wide”.
The figure on the left is an illustration of John Sorenson’s comparative statement of the two theories for the geography of the Book of Mormon. In this figure the large area is a square of 1000 x 1000 and the small area is a square of 100 x 100.
Sorenson’s view of limited geography is possibly more limited than what he may have expected. The land areas of Mesoamerica when compared to the land areas of the Mississippi and St. Lawrence are a ratio of 1:12. His statement of 1000 x 1000 compared to 100 x 100 is a ratio of 1:100. In this view the lands of the Book of Mormon are limited even when compared to the total lands of Mesoamerica.
Armies in Pre-Modern History
Pre-modern history identifies times and places when societies organized large armies. The following figure lists 16 large armies which existed from 1000 BC to AD 420. The figure divides these armies between those of the West and those of the East.
During the 1,420 years represented in the figure for pre-industrial armies there were 6 empires and dynasties which had armies of about 500,000 men. These were (1) the Persian Empire of 500 BC, (2) the Mauryan Empire of 300 BC, (3) the Han Dynasty of AD 1, (4) the Nephite-Lamanite Nations of AD 385, (5) the Gupta Dynasty of AD 350, and (6) the Roman Empire of AD 425.
This paper focuses on the Nephite-Lamanite armies from AD 320 to AD 385. Before going to that point it
is useful to review the histories of pre-modern armies which are comparable to the sizes of the armies found in the last battles of the Book of Mormon. The following world map shows locations of large pre-modern armies numbered from 1 to 4. Number 5 is Mesoamerica. It is too small to support a pre-modern army of 500,000 men. It is presented as a counterpoint for other areas in the world where there were large armies.
The Persian Empire of 500 BC, also called the Achaemenid Empire, was founded by Cyrus the Great.
Ranging at its greatest extent from the Balkans of Eastern Europe in the West to the Indus Valley of India
in the East, it was one of the largest empires in history, spanning 2.1 million square miles. It was also larger than any previous empire in history.
The Han Dynasty of AD 1 had an army of 500,000 men and a population of 50,000,000 people. This empire in the East rivaled that of the contemporary Roman Empire in the West. With only minor interruptions it lasted a span of four centuries and was considered a golden age in Chinese history especially in arts, politics and technology. All subsequent Chinese dynasties have looked to the Han period as an inspiring model of a united empire and self-perpetuating government. The Han Dynasty controlled three major rivers with an area of 1.1 million square miles.
The Gupta Dynasty of AD 375 had about 40,000,000 people which supported an army of 500,000. Based
in northern India, the Gupta Empire was one of the largest political and military empires in world history.
Distinguished by peace and security at home and abroad, as well as by religious freedom and flourishing
trade, the rule of the Guptas led to a remarkable flowering of art and culture that is often referred to as India’s golden age. The Gupta Dynasty had a territory of 1.4 million square miles and including the major
waterways of India such as the Ganges River.
The Roman Empire of AD 420 had arguably one of most effective fighting forces in the history of premodern armies. It had 450,000 men in 33 legions and 400 auxiliary regiments. A population of more than 40,000,000 was necessary to keep these forces in the field. The Empire had a land area of about 1.7 million square miles which included the waterways of the Mediterranean Sea, the Nile River as well as major rivers in Europe and Asia Minor.
The table to the left examines the land and water systems required to support large armies found in
pre-modern history. The table shows that before the modern era a population of at least 30,000,000 living in a land area of 1,000,000 square miles where rivers discharge at least 1,000,000 cubic feet of water per second could support military forces of 500,000 men. The table shows that these conditions for supporting 500,000 armed forces were satisfied for (1) the Persian Armies in Eurasia in 500 BC, (2) for the Mauryan Empire in India in 300 BC, (3) for the Han Dynasty in China in AD 1, (4) for the Nephite-Lamanite Nations in North America in AD 385, (5) for the Gupta Dynasty in India in AD 375, and (6) for the Roman Empire in Eurasia of AD 420. All these cases there were pre-industrial societies. In all these cases there were armies of about 500,000 men.
Mississippi and St. Lawrence Basins and Mesoamerica Land Areas and Water Discharges
The land areas and water discharges are important for comparing the demographic structures of populations in other areas of the world and when estimating the potential for raising and maintaining military forces which are consistent to the record which Mormon made of his final battles around Cumorah.
The construction of the comparisons in attached table to the right, of the Mississippi and St. Lawrence Basins to Mesoamerican lands are based on the number of square miles in the actual areas of the two geographies. The figures in the table are particularly important when comparing the accounts of the Book of Mormon to the histories of Europe, India, and China.
Assumptions and Sources
Every historic account needs assumptions and sources. Here is an outline of how I look at the final battle in the region of Cumorah. The best account of what happened there is found from the plates which Mormon engraved and from the geographical links to the ground where the battles occurred. The Book of Mormon is the primary source. Wayne May knows how to look for traces of these battles. Many important sources from the ground will still come forth.
I offer this as a list of my assumptions and sources.
(1) I believe that the account of the people in the Book of Mormon mainly took place where the waters of the Mississippi and St. Lawrence flow. I do not subscribe to the view which includes both North and South America. I do not subscribe to the view that the setting was in Mesoamerica.
(2) I believe that the chronology of the Book of Mormon is very accurate. In the case of Christ’s death and birth, it is accurate to the very day. (Purchase his Book here!) Mormon knew how to count. He was very careful in keeping track of time and space. It is his book which is the primary source for Cumorah.
(3) I believe that Mormon’s account in 385 AD is a firsthand account. He was the commander-in-chief of
large armies and he required his field commanders to give him accurate reports so that he could control his armies. When Mormon was in battle or preparing for battle he would absolutely require subordinates to report on the number of men who were ready for action. Of course, the 10,000 could have been a figure which was a starting point for a field command. Of course, the actual number for each field command could have been less than 10,000. Perhaps the reported numbers for some units were as low as 6,000. The total men under Mormon’s command during the last battles at Cumorah was 200,000 – 230,000. From the hilltop of his central command Mormon saw 20,000 dead soldiers. Mormon personally witnessed these deaths. He was surprised that he was still alive. He received reports from his field commanders on the destruction of the remaining 210,000 men which were in the area but not in his sight. Mormon certainly knew so much more than we will ever know about this time and place. He and his staff knew the battle order for the Lamanite armies. They knew the resources of the Mississippi River Basin. But even with all this knowledge when the battles began they were surprised at the size of the Lamanite armies. If the size of the Lamanite armies surprised the people who were at central command, is it any wonder that today we have a hard time to appreciate how large this final battle really was?
(4) I have personal experience with the chaos of war. For six years I was a staff officer in Military
Intelligence. My commander wanted to know what was going on and I had to give him good numbers. For six years I was a Foreign Officer and in May 1975 I was on the eighth floor at the head office of the US State Department. Vietnam was falling apart and that war was coming to a close. On a Sunday morning I was the only person on the Guam Desk. On that day there were tens of thousands of refugees in the South China Sea. The Secretary of State wanted to know the number of refugees and these numbers were hard to find. I had to rely on firsthand reports from military commanders in Guam and in Saigon. I have some knowledge of how hard it is to provide good numbers to headquarters when people are dying in war. The commander of any army wants to know every day how many of his men are still alive. Mormon received reports from the field until he found out that his armies were completely destroyed.
(5) In AD 385 Mormon was the supreme commander of great armies. He was not a historian who was trying to estimate the number of men in a war which happened generations before his time. Mormon was commander-in-chief and his staff gave to him reports on the number of men in his armies. How else would he be able to control his armies? To bring it to a closer time. General Grant knew the number of men in his armies. General Lee knew the number of men in his armies. General Eisenhower knew the number of men in his armies. I think that it would be an insult to General Mormon to think that he did no know the number of men under his command. He had firsthand knowledge and he made a record of his armies. No other historical source could possibly be as good as Mormon’s account. We have no right to discount what he wrote. Consider the source and accept it as true. To do otherwise diminishes the heroic effort which Mormon made so that we could have the book which we have received by the gift and power of God.
(6) Based on the primary source of the Book of Mormon, General Mormon had 200,000 – 230,000 men under his command. General Mormon had firsthand knowledge that the Lamanite armies were more numerous than his. The total number of men in the final battles of the Nephite and Lamanite nations was more than 500,000 men. All the resources of the Mississippi and St. Lawrence Basins were organized to support these great armies. This was no small effort. The history of the Book of Mormon took place in an area which had about 1,500,000 square miles. The last battle took place in an area which was maybe 100 x 100 = 10,000 square miles. There is no space in Mesoamerica which could have supported armies as large as Mormon’s account.
When we look at the histories of China, India and Rome we find that there were armies of 500,000 men.
These armies required about a million square miles with world-class rivers to support food production.
Mesoamerica has no rivers which compare to the Nile, to the Yangtze, or to the Ganges. The battle at
Cumorah required the resources of lands where the Mississippi and St. Lawrence flow. Cumorah was one
of the great battles of history.
Mormon’s book has 1,000 years of history and with the exception of the 200 years after Christ’s visit much of Mormon’s history of ancient America was during times when the people were involved in wars. The cycle of wars and more wars is common with the histories of all nations but it was particularly noteworthy among the children of Lehi.
Mormon was a careful student of the history of wars in which his people participated. Many of these wars included large armies. Here is a list of the wars which he mentioned in his book.
– Wars in the time of Jacob.
– Wars in the time of Enos.
– Many battles in the time of Jarom.
– Omni mentions warfare in his time.
– In the time of Amaron, there was destruction and in Abinadom’s time.
– The the people of Zarahemla mentioned that they had wars and contentions amongst themselves.
– War in King Benjamin’s time.
– Zeniff’s battle with his own comrades.
– Zeniff’s wars with the Lamanites.
– King Noah’s battle with the Lamanites
– Lamanite invasion at the end of King Noah’s reign.
– War during Limhi’s rule.
– War with Amlicites.
– Massacres of the Ammonites.
– Destruction of Ammonihah and the war that followed.
– War with Zerahemnah.
– Amalickiah’s war against the Nephites.
– Battle against Morianton.
– Ammoron’s war against the Nephites. Coupled with the Kingmen’s insurrection and rebellion.
– Battles with Lamanites, Moronihah leads the Nephites.
– Repealing of Coriantumr’s invasion.
– Civil wars in the time of Nephi, the son of Helaman.
– Wars with Gadianton robbers.
– Wars against King Jacob by Nephite tribes.
– Wars after the Division of the people. (After the time of Christ.)
– War during Mormon’s childhood.
With all this as background, when Mormon saw the Lamanite armies he wrote “and it came to pass that they came to battle against us, and every soul was filled with terror because of the greatness of their numbers” (Mormon 6:8). The battles at Cumorah were the appalling climax of Mormon’s history. The people of Nephi who had been favored of the Lord fell into a state of wickedness and that wickedness led to their destruction in senseless acts of violence and carnage. Never before had such acts of slaughter been seen among the children of Israel. This was the sad tale which Mormon wrote. I repeat from Mormon’s book that “every soul was filled with terror because of the greatness of their numbers”. This was not just another war in a long list of wars. This was a war of annihilation. Mormon was careful to give us the numbers of men so that his readers might in some small measure appreciate what he experienced when his nation was completely destroyed. At his command post Mormon saw the destruction of 10,000. Next to his command post Mormon saw the destruction of his son’s 10,000. Mormon received dispatches from 21 field commanders where he learned of the destruction of their armies. Wayne May has identified more than 200 ancient fortifications in Western New York. He has a map which shows their locations. Was there an average of 1,000 men per fortification? I do not know the arrangement of these ancient fortifications. It would be interesting to see if there is a cluster or grouping of 10 fortifications which would have reflected a layout of 21 separate field command posts. The map below shows the locations and movements of the Nephite armies and the Lamanite armies from AD 320 to AD 385.
Starting Position – AD 320
The first left quadrant has a map which places Zarahemla on the left and Cumorah on the right. Between these two points seas and rivers. The Lamanites were pushing up from the south across the Ohio River and from the west across the Missouri River. They were trying to cut the Nephite nation in two by overtaking the Land of Bountiful. The Lamanites understand that the plains were open and that it would be difficult for them to engage the Nephite armies in a decisive battle. The Lamanites wanted to destroy the Nephites and they could only do this by crushing them in a final battle. Mormon was familiar with the terrain and feared that his nation would be cut in half. If the Nephite lands were divided in two, Mormon feared that he would only have one last chance before his people could be completely destroyed.
Mormon in AD 380 knew that the forces of the Lamanites were greater than the forces of the Nephites. His first line of defense consisted of forts and earthworks on the Ohio River. Mormon planned that his armies could fall back to a succession of prepared positions to extract a high price from the advancing Lamanite armies. Nevertheless, Mormon wanted to avoid the danger that the Lamanite armies would overrun or outflank his armies.
Delaying the Lamanite armies’ advance would mitigate any advantage of surprise and would allow time for Mormon to move his armies to a second line of defense where he could regroup and take his last stand.
Mormon’s defense in depth strategy deployed his forces in mutually supportive positions and in appropriate roles. For example, he could have put poorly trained troops in static defenses on the front line, whereas better trained and equipped troops could form a mobile reserve. Mormon’s defense in depth would have allowed his armies to maximize the possibilities of natural terrain.
The disadvantage of Mormon’s defense in depth was that it would be difficult for Nephites to give up
important ground to the attacking Lamanites. The Land of Bountiful was close to the front line and was a
vital military and economic resource. If the Lamanite armies were to break through the Land of Bountiful,
the Nephite nation would be cut in half which would make it impossible for Mormon to defend the right flank of the city of Zarahemla. As Mormon’s armies retreated they would have to show a high degree of mobility and Mormon would have to deal with the morale of his own armies after they had lost the first round of battles.
By AD 381 the Lamanites had broken Mormon’s first line of defense and the City of Zarahemla was no
longer defensible. Mormon made an agreement with the leader of the Lamanite armies. Mormon wanted to move his armies to a better position of defense.
Mormon calculated that the best chances for his nation’s survival would be to move his armies into defensive positions where he would force the Lamanite armies to deal with difficult terrain and weather. His defensive plan was similar to the Russians who gave up land and relocated their armies to positions were the armies of Napoleon in 1812 and of Hitler in 1943 would have to deal with the vastness of the land and the coldness of the winter. So, Mormon moved his armies to a place where Lamanties would have to deal with the narrowness of land and the coldness of winter. The large Lamanite armies were on the move to annihilate the Nephite armies. Mormon knew it and he chose Cumorah to make his last stand.
There are mountains south of Cumorah which meant that the Lamanite armies would have to come to him over narrow strips of land along the shore of the South Sea. Mormon understood that by building defensive positions on the many drumlin hills in the region of Cumorah the Lamanites would have a hard time cutting down his armies.
The Lamanites made a deal and they gave Mormon time to move his armies. The Lamanites understood the importance of the last battle and the difficulty of engaging the Nephite armies on the open plains in the Land of Bountiful. The Lamanites agreed to Mormon’s proposal for a last stand and they gave him time to move his forces to the lands around Cumorah.
And so the final battle of the destruction of the Nephites was at Cumorah at a place next to the East Sea, at a place chosen by Mormon and at a place where the great Jaredite nations centuries before were destroyed. This is a sad tale. The details for this fallen people are taken from the Book of Mormon and from the geography of the lands of the Book of Mormon.
As this article began by Dr. Lefgren saying, “All serious conflict results in the displacement of people. Indeed, much of the movement of people in the ancient as well as the modern world is the result of conflict. The proposed research would examine the movements and the encampments of the Hopewellian people who were in conflict in Western New York during the late 4th century”, the statement below from Joseph Fielding Smith adds to that information.
“NEPHITE AND JAREDITE WARS IN WESTERN NEW YORK. In the face of this evidence coming from the Prophet Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer, we cannot say that the Nephites and Lamanites did not possess the territory of the United States and that the Hill Cumorah is in Central America. Neither can we say that the great struggle which resulted in the destruction of the Nephites took place in Central America. If Zelph, a righteous man, was fighting under a great prophet-general in the last battles between the Nephites and Lamanites; if that great prophet-general was known from the Rocky Mountains to “the Hill Cumorah or eastern sea,” then some of those battles, and evidently the final battles did take place within the borders of what is now the United States.
There were no righteous prophets, save the Three Nephites, after the death of Moroni, and we learn that Zelph was slain during one of these battles during the great last struggle between the Nephites and Lamanites and was buried near the Illinois River.
In the Book of Mormon story the Lamanites were constantly crowding the Nephites back towards the north and east. If the battles in which Zelph took part were fought in the country traversed by the Zion’s Camp, then we have every reason to believe from what is written in the Book of Mormon, that the Nephites were forced farther and farther to the north and east until they found themselves in the land of Ripliancum, which both Ether and Mormon declare to us was the land of Ramah or Cumorah, a land of “many waters,” which “by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all. “240. 32
This being true, what would be more natural then that Moroni, like his father Mormon, would deposit the plates in the land where the battles came to an end and the Nephites were destroyed? This Moroni says he did, and from all the evidence in the Book of Mormon, augmented by the testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, these final battles took place in the territory known as the United States and in the neighborhood of the Great
Lakes and hills of Western New York. And here Moroni found the resting place for the sacred instruments which had been committed to his care. 241. 33.” Joseph Fielding Smith Doctrines of Salvation Volume 3 Chapter 12
Dr. John C. Lefgren lives in Pennsylvania and owns his own business. He has a PhD in economics, served as a Foreign Service Officer with the US Department of State and was an officer with a major bank in New York. In 1980 his book April Sixth was published by Deseret Book. Since his youth he has had an active interest in Church History. He has developed a property in Vermont near the Joseph Smith Birthplace Memorial and has a business producing maple syrup.
In his book, April Sixth, John Lefgren said that “On Tuesday, April 6, 1830, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized according to the commandment of the Lord. Why was that date chosen? What was special about the sixth of April?
“For the last century and a half,” the author wrote, “Latter-day Saints have continued to believe that the timing of the restoration of the Church of Christ has an association with the birth of Christ.” April Sixth shows justification for this belief as it links three historic events: the birth of Christ, the death and resurrection of Christ, and the nineteenth-century restoration of the Church of Christ. His friend Dr. John P. Pratt said the following about the book. “Lefgren states that his intent is “to show how the modern revelation concerning the significance of April 6th is in perfect harmony with other sacred writings” (p. 12). That is, he proposes that the belief that Jesus was born on 6 April 1 B.C. is consistent with all LDS scripture, but not necessarily with all secular sources. (All dates refer to our Gregorian calendar.) The reviewers claim that Lefgren also believes the “resurrection of Jesus fell on April sixth. He does not; his date for the Resurrection is 3 April A.D. 33 (p. 61).”
Thirty-eight years after the publication of his first book, Dr. Lefgren again looks to the Mosaic Law for the ordering of days and how this calendar connects to the birth of Christ as synchronized by the world’s largest geometric clock. He examines the very minute for the numeric harmony of the sign for the birth of Christ — a sign which ancient people witnessed in the Heartland of America. The identification of this moment is found in a timeline from more than 2000 years ago and relies on 6 primary sources: (1) the exact movements of the earth around its axis; (2) the exact movements of the earth around the sun; (3) the exact movements of the moon around the earth; (4) the exact physical alignment of 3,000 acres of ancient earthworks in Newark, Ohio; (5) the exact 5-year prophecy of the coming of Christ by Samuel, the Lamanite; and (6) the exact eyewitness testimony of the fulfillment of the prophecy by Nephi, the Son of Nephi. All these sources point to the same moment in time and place.
He has a new book here which is entitled The Sign Before the Birth of Jesus Christ; As Witnessed in Newark, Ohio, 6:29 P.M., Tuesday April 6th, 1 B.C.; The 5-Year Prophecy of Samuel, the Lamanite; The Sun and the Moon Keeping Ancient Time at the Newark Earthworks.
Dr Lefgren along with Dr John Pratt have created a wonderful new DVD called, “Oh How Lovely was the Morning” This is the true story about two people who were on the same search for important dates associated with the History of the Church. Little did they know that their paths would come together many years later in such an important way. The event of the First Vision and the appearance of the Father and the Son to the Prophet Joseph Smith, stands alone as the pivotal event from the Lord in these last days! John Lefgren and John Pratt conclude the date of The First Vision was March 26, 1820.
