I'm not going to bite the bait of your false dichotomy, DoaM.

It is hate speech and action to publish, pamphleteer, publicly speak, or protest a faith group.

Which is what Joseph Smith did, right?

Ah, this popular anti-Mormon gem again.

The answer is no, DoaM. Joseph Smith did not publish, pamphleteer, protest, or publicly speak out against anyone's faith.

He didn't say that all who profess other religions are corrupt? He never publicly criticized other religions?

ETA: This seems critical to me:

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: “they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.”

He was quoting God. Are you suggesting he should change what God said to avoid offense?

Ah, this popular anti-Mormon gem again.

The answer is no, DoaM. Joseph Smith did not publish, pamphleteer, protest, or publicly speak out against anyone's faith.

It's weird that you would claim that this is an "anti-Mormon gem". If Mormonism is true, we would EXPECT that Joseph Smith would publicly criticize other faiths, since all other faiths are wrong. And, of course, it is well-documented that he did. So no, it isn't an "anti-Mormon gem" at all. It is an anti-Simon gem because in your zeal to be right at all times, you quite often trip yourself up and instead of acknowledging your error and defending the faith, you will say indefensible things that make your Mormon faith look even more ridiculous.

It's weird that you would claim that this is an "anti-Mormon gem". If Mormonism is true, we would EXPECT that Joseph Smith would publicly criticize other faiths, since all other faiths are wrong. And, of course, it is well-documented that he did. So no, it isn't an "anti-Mormon gem" at all. It is an anti-Simon gem because in your zeal to be right at all times, you quite often trip yourself up and instead of acknowledging your error and defending the faith, you will say indefensible things that make your Mormon faith look even more ridiculous.

We don't believe all other faiths are wrong. We believe all faiths that do good in the world have certain measures of truth. If you read the passage you quoted, I'll bet you can figure out what God is saying to Joseph Smith: Hint: creeds, not other faiths, are an abomination in His sight. Another hint: The professors are all corrupt means the professors that were involved with Joseph Smith in his immediate area.

We don't believe all other faiths are wrong. We believe all faiths that do good in the world have certain measures of truth. If you read the passage you quoted, I'll bet you can figure out what God is saying to Joseph Smith: Hint: creeds, not other faiths, are an abomination in His sight. Another hint: The professors are all corrupt means the professors that were involved with Joseph Smith in his immediate area.

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong..."

He continues by saying that their creeds were abominable, etc., but that was after he stated clearly that all other faiths were wrong. No, it says nothing about professors "in his immediate area." And he did publicly claim that other religions are wrong, even claiming that he was persecuted for saying so.

That's certainly a positive development, in my book. Simon's take on the First Vision is an improvement on earlier teachings.

As a non-Mormon, I must say I feel somewhat conflicted here, in the same way I am conflicted about the Church's racism. Yes, it is in many ways a positive development that the church is attempting to be somewhat more tolerant than it was in the past. But at the same time, it has to distort its history to do this.

So which is more important? A more tolerant Church or a Church that remains true to its historical doctrines? My personal opinion is that it would be better that people that know the truth leave. There is no reasonable path to reform.

Successful organizations adapt with the times. In the LDS church, that's called continuing revelation.

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong..."

He continues by saying that their creeds were abominable, etc., but that was after he stated clearly that all other faiths were wrong. No, it says nothing about professors "in his immediate area." And he did publicly claim that other religions are wrong, even claiming that he was persecuted for saying so.

Joseph was seeking out which religion to join. He visited several "revivals" in his area. God told him not to join any of them. What does "them" mean in context? Those that he was considering joining. God also says that those professors were corrupt. Which professors? In context, the ones he was considering following.

Of course, you're well aware that for a very long time the church did not restrict God's words to the immediate vicinity. Earlier church leaders routinely referred to "so-called Christian churches" and decried sectarian ministers as being in the pay of Satan.

So, yes, the current teaching is tolerant, but it hasn't always been that way.

evolution also seems to be an appropriate way to describe things in this case. God made a pronouncement, according to LDS, ..."I must join none of them, for they were all wrong...", and now many LDS see that not all religions are all wrong. Many indeed accept that all religions have much good and truth. You see, God, if it was He who spoek to Joseph Smith, as LDS believe, said they are all wrong, it does not mean that everything a religion teaches is wrong, but that no religion at that time was God's one true Church.

Anyway, sometimes that which is revelation to some is just evolved thinking and understanding to another. That's not to say there is no modern day revelation in my estimation.

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.

I think that what Simon is saying is that St. Joseph of Nauvoo can't possibly be criticized because his words and deeds are sanctified and above reproach.

That is not my position at all. I believe that Joseph Smith had good intentions and love for other faiths. He said so throughout his life, in fact.