Hate to burst the bubble right out of the gate.
First difference - Paul was accompanied by others who were exposed to the experience to a limited degree and Paul was blinded (to be healed later) - eyewitnesses. smith was by himself (either in the woods or bedroom - contradictory accounts), and even his mother had no idea such an event took place.
Second - contrary to your attack on the accounts of Paul's encounter as well as the resurrection accounts, smith's accounts as indicated above, have significant contradictions which you ignored in CC's citation.
Third - Paul's encounter occured early in the life of the church - probably around 35 AD. 1 Cor written 53 to 57 AD, so 24 years later is a bit high. Never the less, the culture at that time had a considerable oral transmission of information. So just because it was not written till then does not mean that he did not give his account about it.
Fourth - Within a few years, when Paul went to Jerusalem - his story was recited to those in attendance - this is within a period of 3 years after the event (Acts 9:26-27). Thus his story was confirmed through the recitation of Barnabas.
Time constraints limit my ability to dissect the article further, but on a final note - Paul was condemned, though being a man of peace. smith was murdered as the end result of his ordering the illegal destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. You read the story and you will see that he though the crowd were parts of the Nauvoo legion coming to spring him from jail. Paul submitted to death, Smith had a gun smuggled in and shot it at the mob, killing two. That is not a martyr death, that is the death of a criminal.
And the people say “Amen”.