FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Chapter 9"
(→197, 547n122 (PB)) |
(→183 - "Where were all those rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence?") |
||
Line 193: | Line 193: | ||
|authorsources= | |authorsources= | ||
None | None | ||
+ | |misinformation=One would assume that the author probably meant to say the "Constitution" or the "Bill of Rights." | ||
}} | }} | ||
− | |||
====186-187, 544n70 (PB) - Did Joseph set up a "shadow-government" called the "Council of Fifty"?==== | ====186-187, 544n70 (PB) - Did Joseph set up a "shadow-government" called the "Council of Fifty"?==== |
Revision as of 22:32, 7 January 2015
- REDIRECTTemplate:Test3
Response to claims made in "Chapter 9: March to Martyrdom"
Claims made in "Chapter 8: Big Trouble In Little Missouri" | A FAIR Analysis of: One Nation Under Gods A work by author: Richard Abanes
|
Claims made in "Chapter 10: A New Beginning" |
...intellectual reasoning and logical thought never had played more than a minor role in their belief system.
—One Nation Under Gods, p. 172
171 epigraph, 542n1 (HB) 540n1 (PB) - Joseph Smith said ""I combat the errors of the ages..."
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
*Hardback edition:"I combat the errors of the ages;...I solve mathematical problems of universities, with truth—diamond truth; and God is my 'right hand man.'...[God] will make me be God to you in his stead,...and if you don't like it, you must lump it....I have more to boast of than ever any man had....I boast that no man ever did such a work as I."
Joseph Smith
History of the Church, 1844
- Paperback edition:
"I combat the errors of the ages;...I solve mathematical problems of universities, with truth—diamond truth; and God is my "right hand man" [1843]. God made Aaron to be the mouth piece for the children of Israel, and He will make me be god to you in His stead [1844]. I have more to boast of than ever any man had....I boast that no man ever did such a work as I [1844]."
Joseph Smith
History of the ChurchAuthor's sources: *History of the Church, 6:78, 319-320, 408-409. 319-320, 408-409 Volume 6 link
FAIR's Response
- Note the corrections made between the hardback and the paperback. This was originally presented as a single quote.
- Misrepresentation of source: Use of sources: Joseph Smith's Narcissism
- Joseph used these phrases in a letter, responding humorously to something his correspondent said.
- REDIRECTJoseph Smith's alleged narcissism#Did Joseph Smith believe that he was better than Jesus Christ?
- REDIRECTDid Joseph have lustful motives for practicing polygamy?#Stephen H. Webb: "Evidence That Demands Our Amazement... Joseph Smith was a remarkable person"
#REDIRECTJoseph Smith's alleged narcissism#Was Joseph Smith prone to boasting?
172 - "intellectual reasoning and logical thought never had played more than a minor role in their belief system"
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: "...for Joseph, his followers were more than willing to accept any excuse he might give them...intellectual reasoning and logical thought never had played more than a minor role in their belief system."Author's sources: N/A
FAIR's Response
This is one of many instances in this work which employ loaded or prejudicial language in order to lead the reader to a specific conclusion.
174, 541n17 (PB) - Did Brigham Young actually say that Joseph Smith's character "was easily on par with Jesus Christ's?"
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Did Brigham Young actually say that Joseph Smith's character "was easily on par with Jesus Christ's?"Author's sources: Brigham Young, (August 13, 1871) Journal of Discourses 14:203.
FAIR's Response
- The author's claim is false
Question: Did Brigham Young state the Joseph Smith's character was easily on par with that of Jesus Christ?
Brigham was comparing Joseph Smith against other prophets, not Jesus Christ
Brigham did not say Joseph's character was "easily on par with Jesus Christ's"...he said that Joseph's character "stands as fair as that of any man's mentioned in the Bible." Brigham was comparing Joseph Smith with other prophets. (see below):
"Well, now, examine the character of the Savior, and examine the characters of those who have written the Old and New Testaments; and then compare them with the character of Joseph Smith, the founder of this work —- the man whom God called and to whom He gave the keys of Priesthood, and through whom He has established His Church and kingdom for the last time, and you will find that his character stands as fair as that of any man's mentioned in the Bible. We can find no person who presents a better character to the world when the facts are known than Joseph Smith, jun., the prophet, and his brother, Hyrum Smith, who was murdered with him." (emphasis added)
Brigham Young: "I am bold to say that, Jesus Christ, excepted, no better man ever lived or does live upon this earth"
Elsewhere, Brigham also said:
Who can justly say aught against Joseph Smith? I was as well acquainted with him, as any man. I do not believe that his father and mother knew him any better than I did. I do not think that a man lives on the earth that knew him any better than I did; and I am bold to say that, Jesus Christ, excepted, no better man ever lived or does live upon this earth. I am his witness. He was persecuted for the same reason that any other righteous person has been or is persecuted at the present day.[1]
President Young's meaning is clear; those who claim otherwise have distorted this text and Brigham's intent.
175, 543n21 (HB) 541n21 (PB)
Claim
- Is Joseph Smith considered as important to Latter-day Saints' spirituality as Jesus Christ?"
- Did Levi Edgar Young say that the "grandeur of Joseph Smith's life" was "the all-important truth that the world needed to hear" and that "thousands would turn not to God, but to Joseph."
Author's source(s) - 21. Levi Edgar Young, letter dated April 14, 1961. Quoted in Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?, 5th edition, (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 252.
- The author's claim is false: Under no circumstances would Latter-day Saints be encouraged to "turn not to God, but to Joseph." This is a highly pejorative and offensive statement.
- Loaded and prejudicial language
- Absurd claims
- Use of sources: Thou Shalt Not Raise a False Report
175, 541n23 (PB) - Did Brigham Young "twist" John 4:3 in order to apply it to Joseph?
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Did Brigham Young "twist" John 4:3 in order to apply it to Joseph?Author's sources: Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:176..
FAIR's Response
This claim is also made in Becoming Gods, p. 28
Question: Did Brigham Young commit blasphemy by applying 1 John 4:3 to Joseph Smith?
The scripture in 1 John applies to Joseph because Joseph is a prophet—and prophets testify of Christ
It is claimed that Joseph's place in LDS theology is blasphemous and even idolatrous. As evidence for this, they cite Brigham Young's application of 1 John 4:3 to Joseph.
The scripture in 1 John applies to Joseph because Joseph is a prophet—and prophets testify of Christ. To reject Christ's prophets is to reject him. One can no more, in Brigham's mind, reject Joseph Smith and claim to obey Christ than one could reject Peter, James, John, Paul, or Matthew and consider oneself a faithful Christian. The application of 1 John to Joseph Smith applies only insofar as Joseph is an apostle and witness of Christ.
Brigham Young said:
For unbelievers we will quote from the Scriptures—"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." Again—"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God." I will now give my scripture—"Whosoever confesseth that Joseph Smith was sent of God to reveal the holy Gospel to the children of men, and lay the foundation for gathering Israel, and building up the kingdom of God on the earth, that spirit is of God; and every spirit that does not confess that God has sent Joseph Smith, and revealed the everlasting Gospel to and through him, is of Antichrist....
Brigham does apply 1 John to Joseph—but interestingly insists that to deny Joseph is to "Antichrist." That is, to reject Joseph is to reject Christ. Critics rarely provide this perspective, which Brigham makes more clear as he continues:
They may say that they acknowledge Him [Jesus and His Father] until doomsday, and he will never own them, nor bestow the Holy Spirit upon them, and they will never have visions of eternity opened to them, unless they acknowledge that Joseph Smith is sent of God. Such people I call unbelievers. They tell about believing in Jesus Christ, but they might as well talk about birds understanding the Hebrew language. This statement is no more positive than true. All whom I call unbelievers, if they will repent of their sins, obey the requirements in the New Testament, be baptized for the remission of sins by a man who holds the key and authority to lead them into the waters of baptism, and receive the laying on of hands for the Holy Ghost, shall receive a witness that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, and that he was sent of God to build up his kingdom in this last dispensation. You will receive a Spirit that will bring all things to your remembrance, past present, and to come, teaching you all things necessary for you to understand. There are but a few in this generation who will do this.[2]
Brigham makes it clear that a belief in Joseph's prophetic mission springs from a willingness to accept God in faith, repent, "obey...the New Testament," be baptized for the remission of sins, and receive the Holy Ghost.
175, 542n24 (PB)
Claim
- Did Joseph suffer from narcissism?
Author's source(s) - Robert D. Anderson, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, xxxix, 222-242.
176, 542n26-28 (PB) - Joseph claimed that he was "nearly equal to" or "as good as" Jesus Christ
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Why did Hezekiah McKune, Sophia Lewis and Levi Lewis state that Joseph claimed that he was "nearly equal to" or "as good as" Jesus Christ.Author's sources: Eber D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed (Painesville, OH, 1834), 268-269. (Affidavits examined)
FAIR's Response
<onlyinclude>
- REDIRECTThe Hurlbut affidavits
177, 544n29 (HB) 542n29 (PB) - Why did Joseph Smith state: "I am the only man that has been able to keep the whole church together....Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it"?
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Why did Joseph Smith state: "I am the only man that has been able to keep the whole church together....Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it"?Author's sources: History of the Church, 6:408-409. Volume 6 link
FAIR's Response
#REDIRECTJoseph Smith's alleged narcissism#Was Joseph Smith prone to boasting?
178, 544n34 (HB) 542n34 (PB)
Claim
- Was Joseph boasting of violence when he claimed: "I wrestled with William Wall, the most expert wrestler in Ramus, and threw him?"
Author's source(s) - History of the Church, 5:302. Volume 5 link
179, 544n36 (HB) 542n36 (PB) - Did Joseph boast of his fighting skill and his strength?
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Did Joseph boast of his fighting skill and his strength when he said: "I feel as strong as a giant....I pulled up with one hand the strongest man that could be found. Then two men tried, but they could not pull me up."Author's sources: History of the Church, vol. 5, 466.
FAIR's Response
Question: Did Joseph Smith brag about his strength and prowess in fighting?
Joseph was talking about his skill in a game called "stick pulling"
Consider these two quotes from Joseph Smith provided by the author of the critical book One Nation Under Gods:
On June 30, 1843, Smith fought and boasted again of his strength, saying: "I feel as strong as a giant....I pulled up with one hand the strongest man that could be found. Then two men tried, but they could not pull me up."36 (emphasis added) [3]
And,
On June 30, 1843, he wrestled and bragged again of his prowess, saying: "I feel as strong as a giant....I pulled up with one hand the strongest man that could be found. Then two men tried, but they could not pull me up."34 (emphasis added) [4]
In both quotes above, the author seeks to illustrate a violent personality in Joseph Smith. Notice that both quotes contain an ellipsis. What do you suppose the critic of the Church removed from the quote?
In fact, if one reads these quotes carefully, it might strike the reader odd that the struggle between Joseph and his 'opponents' did not involve something like tackling, hitting, or throwing down--which are typical action words used when describing a fight. On the contrary, the struggle involved a "pulling up" motion--a description that would, in fact, fit one of Joseph Smith's favorite recreational games: Stick-pulling.
Perhaps if we were to look up the passage, we might be able to see the proper context. Take a look at the whole quote, omission and all (the bold portion was not included in the author's quote):
I feel as strong as a giant. I pulled sticks with the men coming along, and I pulled up with one hand the strongest man that could be found. Then two men tried, but they could not pull me up.
This is not a violent description at all! "Pulling sticks" is a game of sitting on the ground, facing one another, placing feet together, grabbing forward to a stick, and attempting to pull the other person up from the ground.
178, 544n39 (HB) 542n39 (PB) - Did Jedediah Grant say that Joseph hit a Baptist preacher and and then throw him to the ground?
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Did Jedediah Grant say that Joseph hit a Baptist preacher and and then throw him to the ground so violently that he "whirled round a few times, like a duck shot in the head?"Author's sources: Jedediah M. Grant, (September 24, 1854) Journal of Discourses 3:67.
FAIR's Response
Question: Did Joseph Smith hit a Baptist preacher and throw him to the ground?
Jedediah Grant says nothing about Joseph Smith actually wrestling, much less 'hitting,' the Baptist preacher. He only states that the preacher was "shocked" at the Prophet's proposal
One critic of the Church claims that Jedediah Grant said that "Smith hit the [Baptist] preacher and threw him to the ground so violently that the minister 'whirled round a few times, like a duck shot in the head'" (emphasis added) [5]
However, the critic fails to tell us that this was in the context of the preacher being shocked by his senses, not "hit" by the Prophet.
Let's look at what Jedediah Grant actually said (the portion extracted by the author is highlighted in bold):
Before the Baptist priest, I have referred to, came to Nauvoo, he had heard brother William O. Clark, who could preach a bible and a half at a sermon, and could use the fashionable old tone, the blessed old tone. This Baptist imbibed a notion that we were as much ahead of his ideas of piety, and that our tone was as much longer than his, as the strength of the arguments produced by Clark were stronger than his; and supposed that our sanctimoniousness was co-equal with what he considered the merits of our doctrine.
Under these impressions he came to Nauvoo, and was introduced to the Prophet. In the meantime some person came up that brother Joseph would have a talk with, but while doing this he kept his eye upon the stranger, on this priest. After he got through chatting, the Baptist stood before him, and folding his arms said, "Is it possible that I now flash my optics upon a Prophet, upon a man who has conversed with my Savior?" "Yes," says the Prophet, "I don't know but you do; would not you like to wrestle with me?" That, you see, brought the priest right on to the thrashing floor, and he turned a summerset right straight. After he had whirled round a few times, like a duck shot in the head, he concluded that his piety had been awfully shocked, even to the centre, and went to the Prophet to learn why he had so shocked his piety. The Prophet commenced and showed him the follies of the world, and the absurdity of the long tone, and that he had a super-abundant stock of sanctimoniousness. [6]
This source says NOTHING about Joseph Smith actually wrestling, much less 'hitting,' the Baptist preacher. It only states that the preacher was "shocked" at the Prophet's proposal—evidently because he could not imagine that a prophet of God would do such a thing as engage in physical sports. This apparently softened his outlook sufficiently for Joseph to have a talk with him about avoiding "the long tone" and sanctimony.
181-182 - Were the commissioned officers in the Nauvoo Legion were granted "law-making powers"?
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Were the commissioned officers in the Nauvoo Legion were granted "law-making powers?"Author's sources: No source provided.
FAIR's Response
The author's source is unclear. Some officers in the Legion were also civic lawmakers (e.g., mayor, councilors, alderman, etc.) but it is not clear what lawmaking powers the author is claiming for militia officers as such.
182, 542n46 - Was the Nauvoo Legion simply a "resurrection" of the Danites?
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Was the Nauvoo Legion simply a "resurrection" of the Danites?Author's sources: *Hosea Stout, On the Mormon Frontier: The Diary of Hosea Stout, Juanita Brooks, ed., vol. 1, 140-141, 197, 259.
FAIR's Response
- In what ways? In what ways were they different?
- The militia was organized with the sanction of the Illinois legislature, the state supplied arms, and its officers received commissions from the state. [7]
183 - "Where were all those rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence?"
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: "Where were all those rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence?"Author's sources: None
FAIR's Response
186-187, 544n70 (PB) - Did Joseph set up a "shadow-government" called the "Council of Fifty"?
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Did Joseph set up a "shadow-government" called the "Council of Fifty" for the purpose of organizing the "political kingdom of God in preparation for the second coming of Christ?"Author's sources: Woodruff, in Kenny, under March 11, 1844, vol. 2, 366.
FAIR's Response
Question: What was the Council of Fifty?
Joseph Smith received a revelation which called for the organization of a special council
On 7 April 1842, Joseph Smith received a revelation titled "The Kingdom of God and His Laws, With the Keys and Power Thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ," which called the for the organization of a special council separate from, but parallel to, the Church. Since its inception, this organization has been generally been referred to as "the Council of Fifty" because of its approximate number of members.
The Council of Fifty was designed to serve as something of a preparatory legislature in the Kingdom of God
Latter-day Saints believe that one reason the gospel was restored was to prepare the earth for the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Just as the Church was to bring about religious changes in the world, the Council of Fifty was intended to bring a political transformation. It was therefore designed to serve as something of a preparatory legislature in the Kingdom of God. Joseph Smith ordained the council to be the governing body of the world, with himself as chairman, Prophet, Priest, and King over the Council and the world (subject to Jesus Christ, who is "King of kings"[8]).
The Council was organized on 11 March 1844, at which time it adopted rules of procedure, including those governing legislation. One rule included instructions for passing motions:
To pass, a motion must be unanimous in the affirmative. Voting is done after the ancient order: each person voting in turn from the oldest to the youngest member of the Council, commencing with the standing chairman. If any member has any objections he is under covenant to fully and freely make them known to the Council. But if he cannot be convinced of the rightness of the course pursued by the Council he must either yield or withdraw membership in the Council. Thus a man will lose his place in the Council if he refuses to act in accordance with righteous principles in the deliberations of the Council. After action is taken and a motion accepted, no fault will be found or change sought for in regard to the motion.[9]
What is interesting about this rule is that it required each council member, by covenant, to voice his objections to proposed legislation. Those council members who dissented and could not be convinced to change their minds were to withdraw from the council, however, they would suffer no repercussions by doing so. Thus, full freedom of conscience was maintained by the council — not exactly the sort of actions a despot or tyrant would allow.
The Council never rose to the stature Joseph intended
Members (which included individuals that were not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) were sent on expeditions west to explore emigration routes for the Saints, lobbied the American government, and were involved in Joseph Smith's presidential campaign. But only three months after it was established, Joseph was killed, and his death was the beginning of the Council's end. Brigham Young used it as the Saints moved west and settled in the Great Basin, and it met annually during John Taylor's administration, but since that time the Council has not played an active role among the Latter-day Saints.
188, 544n78 - Did the Council of Fifty ordain Joseph to be "King and Ruler over Israel?"
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Did the Council of Fifty ordain Joseph to be "King and Ruler over Israel?"Author's sources: John Taylor, "A Revelation on the Kingdom of God in the Last Days given through President John Taylor at Salt Lake City," June 27, 1882, reprinted in Fred C. Coliier, ed., Unpublished Revelations, vol. 1, 133.
FAIR's Response
Question: Was Joseph Smith anointed to be "King over the earth" by the Council of Fifty?
Joseph was never anointed King over the earth in any political sense
Some people claim that Joseph Smith had himself anointed king over the whole world, and that this shows he was some sort of megalomaniac.
The Council of Fifty, while established in preparation for a future Millennial government under Jesus Christ (who is the King of Kings) was to be governed on earth during this preparatory period by the highest presiding ecclesiastical authority, which at the time was the Prophet Joseph Smith. Joseph had previously been anointed a King and Priest in the Kingdom of God by religious rites associated with the fullness of the temple endowment, and was placed as a presiding authority over this body in his most exalted position within the kingdom of God (as a King and a Priest).
Joseph was anointed as the presiding authority over an organization that was to prepare for the future reign of Jesus Christ during the Millennium
The fact that Joseph's prior anointing was referenced in his position as presiding authority over this body creates the confusion that he had been anointed King of the Earth. He was in fact only anointed as the presiding authority over an organization that was to prepare for the future reign of Jesus Christ during the Millennium. The fact that Joseph had submitted his name for consideration as President of the United States during this same period adds fodder for critics seeking to malign the character of the Prophet.
189, 545n83
Claim
- Did Latter-day Saints believe that "the only acceptable government" would have to be in the form of a global theocracy?
- Didn't Joseph say "It has been the design of Jehovah, from the commencement of the world, and is his purpose now, to regulate the affairs of the world...to stand as head of the universe, and take the reigns of government into his own hands?"
Author's source(s) - Joseph Smith, "The Government of God," Times and Seasons 3 no. 18 (July 15, 1842), 856-857. off-site GospeLink
189 - Was Joseph Smith crowned "king of the world?"
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Was Joseph Smith crowned "king of the world?"
FAIR's Response
Question: Was Joseph Smith anointed to be "King over the earth" by the Council of Fifty?
Joseph was never anointed King over the earth in any political sense
Some people claim that Joseph Smith had himself anointed king over the whole world, and that this shows he was some sort of megalomaniac.
The Council of Fifty, while established in preparation for a future Millennial government under Jesus Christ (who is the King of Kings) was to be governed on earth during this preparatory period by the highest presiding ecclesiastical authority, which at the time was the Prophet Joseph Smith. Joseph had previously been anointed a King and Priest in the Kingdom of God by religious rites associated with the fullness of the temple endowment, and was placed as a presiding authority over this body in his most exalted position within the kingdom of God (as a King and a Priest).
Joseph was anointed as the presiding authority over an organization that was to prepare for the future reign of Jesus Christ during the Millennium
The fact that Joseph's prior anointing was referenced in his position as presiding authority over this body creates the confusion that he had been anointed King of the Earth. He was in fact only anointed as the presiding authority over an organization that was to prepare for the future reign of Jesus Christ during the Millennium. The fact that Joseph had submitted his name for consideration as President of the United States during this same period adds fodder for critics seeking to malign the character of the Prophet.
191 - Did Joseph send Orrin Porter Rockwell to kill ex-Governor Boggs?
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Did Joseph send Orrin Porter Rockwell to kill ex-Governor Boggs?Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
- Joseph denied the charge (History of the Church 5:15).
- Rockwell was tried in Missouri and acquitted. [10]
- Monte B. McLaws, "The Attempted Assassination of Missouri's Ex-Governor, Lilburn W. Boggs," Missouri Historical Review LX (October 1965), 50-62 examined the evidence and found it insufficient to assign blame to anyone.
- This is the fallacy of probability
191 - Does D&C 98:31 justify the murder of personal enemies?
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Does D&C 98:31 justify the murder of personal enemies?Author's sources: DC 98꞉31
FAIR's Response
- The author's claim is false: Use of sources: D&C 98:31 justifies murder
Question: Does Doctrine and Covenants 98:31 justify the murder of one's personal enemies?
This scripture describes when a just war may be entered into - it has nothing to do with justifying murder
This scripture describes when a just war may be entered into—it requires that the Christian suffer unprovoked attack three times, and then one has the option of going to war. It says nothing about murder of personal enemies:
29 And then [after three attacks, and having warned your enemy in the name of the Lord], if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children's children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands;
30 And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children's children unto the third and fourth generation.
31 Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.
...
33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.
34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;
35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;
36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people. (D&C 98꞉29-36) (emphasis added)
Any implementation of this principle requires yet another unprovoked attack in which the Christian or his family are at risk of their lives, to which one may then respond with deadly force. It says nothing at all about murder.
192, 546n98 (PB)
Claim
- Did Porter Rockwell admit that he had tried to kill Boggs?
Author's source(s) - Orrin Porter Rockwell. Quoted in Harold Schindler, Orrin Porter Rockwell, Man of God, Son of Thunder, 80.
- Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker, A Book of Mormons, 250.
192, 546n99 (PB) - Did Joseph Smith escape both times after he was arrested twice for his alleged role in Boggs' assassination attempt?
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Did Joseph Smith escape both times after he was arrested twice for his alleged role in Boggs' assassination attempt?Author's sources: Hallwas and Launius, Cultures in Conflict, 88-89.
FAIR's Response
- History unclear or in error
- In the first instance, Joseph was arrested by Missourians, and then released since he had been served an illegal warrant— it charged that he had fled Missouri after committing the crime, an impossibility. [11]
- In the second case, Joseph submitted to arrest and the governor, a probate judge, the U.S. District Attorney for Illinois, and the Illinois Supreme Court found that the arrest warrant from Missouri was illegal. [12]
- Joseph "escaped" through due process of law; in both cases the warrant was illegal; in the second case, it was so declared by the governor and state supreme court.
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Loaded and prejudicial language
192 - "Not until 1841 in Nauvoo...was Smith's seemingly insatiable lust for women and young girls unleashed"
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: "Not until 1841 in Nauvoo...was Smith's seemingly insatiable lust for women and young girls unleashed."Author's sources: Author's opinion.
FAIR's Response
193 - Did Joseph Smith advocate the practice of polyandry?
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Did Joseph Smith advocate the practice of polyandry?Author's sources: No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Question: Was Joseph Smith married or sealed to women who were already married to other living men?
Joseph Smith was sealed to 11 women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church
Among Joseph's plural marriages and/or sealings, between eight to eleven of them were to women who were already married. Of the eight well-documented cases, five of the husbands were Latter-day Saints, and the other three were either not active in or not associated with the Church. In all cases, these women continued to live with their husbands, most of them doing so until their husbands died. These eternal marriages appear to have had little effect upon the lives of the women involved, with the exception that they would be sealed to Joseph in the afterlife rather than to their earthly husbands. One of the most well-known of these "polyandrous" marriages was to Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs.[13]
Of all the aspects of Joseph Smith's marital theology, this is the most difficult area to understand, because very little primary evidence exists. As one scholar noted:
Perhaps nothing is less understood than Joseph Smith's sealings to women already married, because the evidence supports conflicting interpretations.[14]
These "polyandrous" marriages have given rise to a number of criticisms:
- Why would Joseph be sealed to other men's wives?
- What was the nature of these marriages? Were they consummated?
- Why did these 11 women continue to live with and have children with their husbands even after being sealed to Joseph Smith?
- One critic of the church notes, "Joseph Smith would frequently approach other men’s wives about being his own plural wives..." [15]
At the time that celestial marriage was introduced, it was possible to be married for time to one person and sealed for eternity to another. These marriages appear to have been performed for the purpose of forming dynastic bonds in the afterlife, as there is no evidence that Joseph ever cohabited or had intimate relations with any of these women. No children from these marriages have ever been identified. These were sealings which would only affect Joseph's association with these women in the afterlife.
193 - "The wives continued to live with their husbands after marrying Smith, but would have conjugal visits from Joseph whenever it served his needs"
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: "The wives continued to live with their husbands after marrying Smith, but would have conjugal visits from Joseph whenever it served his needs."Author's sources: No source provided. Author's opinion.
FAIR's Response
- The author's claim is false: The author is challenged to provide a primary source documenting this claim.
- Loaded and prejudicial language
194 - Did Joseph violate a Biblical prohibition on marrying a mother and daughter or two sisters?
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Did Joseph violate a Biblical prohibition on marrying a mother and daughter or two sisters?Author's sources: Leviticus 18:17-18
FAIR's Response
- The author cannot make up his mind. First, he tells us that there is no Biblical approval or command to practice plural marriage (see p. 305, (PB)). This claim is false, since levirate marriage is commanded by the Bible (Deuteronomy 25:5-6), and laws are given about the proper care of plural wives (Deuteronomy 21:15-17).
- Now, the author wishes to make Joseph bound by the marital codes of the Law of Moses. There are many other Law of Moses principles which Joseph did not keep either—but, neither does the author. A key tenet of Christianity is that the Law of Moses is no longer binding (e.g., Acts 15:20,29).
- Joseph did not claim to practice plural marriage under biblical authority (Old Testament or otherwise), but on the basis of new revelation. He and his followers used the Old Testament as evidence that God did not always forbid plural marriage, but this is a different matter from believing they were re-enacting the Law of Moses' polygamy on the Bible's authority alone.
Question: Does the Bible prohibit polygamous marriages involving a mother and daughter?
A biblical prohibition under the Mosaic law prohibited polygamous marriages involving a mother and daughter or two sisters
A biblical prohibition under the Mosaic law prohibited polygamous marriages involving a mother and daughter:
Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time. Leviticus 18꞉18
The law also prohibited one from marrying two sisters:
And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. Leviticus 20꞉14
Question: Did Joseph Smith being sealed to mothers, daughters and sisters violate a biblical prohibition?
Joseph Smith did not restore the practice of plural marriage according to Mosaic law—plural marriage was practiced prior to the institution of the Mosaic law without these restrictions
Joseph Smith did not restore the practice of plural marriage according to Mosaic law—plural marriage was practiced prior to the institution of the Mosaic law without these restrictions. A well-known example is Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel: He was married to the two sisters Rachel and Leah.
For example, the Hebrew law of "levirate marriage" actually required a man to take his childless deceased brother's wife as his own wife in order to produce offspring for his brother
It should also be noted that the biblical practice of levirate marriage, as defined by Hebrew law, required a man to take his childless deceased brother's wife as his own wife in order to produce offspring for his brother. This was also a case of marrying two sisters.
Deuteronomy 25꞉5-6 states,
5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.
6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
From the Wikipedia article "Levirate marriage":
Levirate marriage is a type of marriage in which the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother's widow, and the widow is obliged to marry her deceased husband's brother.....A levirate marriage (Hebrew: yibbum) is mandated by Deuteronomy 25:5-6 of the Hebrew Bible and obliges a brother to marry the widow of his childless deceased brother, with the firstborn child being treated as that of the deceased brother, (see also Genesis 38:8) which renders the child the heir of the deceased brother and not the genetic father. [16]
195, 547n117 (PB) - Did Joseph denounce polygamy as sinful and state that "monogamy was God's perfect design?
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Did Joseph denounce polygamy as sinful and state that "monogamy was God's perfect design?"Author's sources: *Times and Seasons, March 15, 1843, vol. 4, no. 9, 143.
FAIR's Response
196, 549n119 (HB) 547n119 (PB)
Claim
- Author's quote: "Apostates...preached against the evils thriving in Joseph's city of debauchery and despotism."
Author's source(s) - History of the Church, 6:363. Volume 6 link
- Misrepresentation of source: Use of sources: Debauchery and despotism at Nauvoo
- Nauvoo Expositor Full Text
- Loaded and prejudicial language
197, 547n122 (PB) - Did Joseph destroy the Nauvoo Expositor because his "entire plan to rule the world" was about to be exposed?
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Did Joseph destroy the Nauvoo Expositor because his "entire plan to rule the world" was about to be exposed?Author's sources:
- Clayton, see Robert C. Fillerup, under June 22, 1844, in "Nauvoo Temple History Journal, William Clayton, 1845,".
- Andrew F. Ehat, "'It Seems Like Heaven Began On Earth': Joseph Smith and the Constitution of the Kingdom of God," Brigham Young University Studies 20 (Spring 1980), 268.
FAIR's Response
Life and Character |
|
Youth |
|
Revelations and the Church |
|
Prophetic Statements |
|
Society |
|
Plural marriage (polygamy) |
|
Death |
Related articles: | John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo Summary: Mountebank, deceiver, and charmer, John C. Bennett's arrival at Nauvoo and his interactions with the Saints and Joseph would have a lasting impact that led indirectly to Joseph's death. |
Nauvoo city charter Summary: Follow this to learn about historical and political events that preceded the Nauvoo Expositor issue. The powers granted Nauvoo were not seized by the Saints; they were granted lawfully, and could have been removed lawfully by the legislature. |
Was the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor legal?
The destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor led directly to the murder of Joseph and Hyrum
It is claimed by one critic of the Church that Joseph "could not allow the Expositor to publish the secret international negotiations masterminded by Mormonism’s earthly king." [17] Another claimed that "When the Laws (with others) purchased a printing press in an attempt to hold Joseph Smith accountable for his polygamy (which he was denying publicly), Joseph ordered the destruction of the printing press, which was both a violation of the 1st Amendment, and which ultimately led to Joseph’s assassination." [18]
The Expositor incident led directly to the murder of Joseph and Hyrum, but it was preceded by a long period of non-Mormon distrust of Joseph Smith, and attempts to extradite him on questionable basis.
The destruction of the Expositor issue was legal; it was not legal to have destroyed the type, but this was a civil matter, not a criminal one, and one for which Joseph was willing to pay a fine if imposed.
Joseph seems to have believed—or, his followers believed after his death—that the decision, while 'unwise' for Joseph, may have been in the Saints' interest to have Joseph killed. For a time, this diffused much of the tension and may have prevented an outbreak of generalized violence against the Saints, as occurred in Missouri.
The destruction of the first issue was legal, but it was not legal to destroy the printer's type
It is claimed that "When the Laws (with others) purchased a printing press in an attempt to hold Joseph Smith accountable for his polygamy (which he was denying publicly), Joseph ordered the destruction of the printing press, which was both a violation of the 1st Amendment, and which ultimately led to Joseph’s assassination." [19]
The destruction of the Expositor issue (i.e., the paper itself) was legal; it was not legal to have destroyed the type, but this was a civil matter, not a criminal one, and one for which Joseph was willing to pay a fine if imposed.
Joseph did not unilaterally order the action against the Expositor—it was the Nauvoo City Council (which included non-Mormons) which reached the unanimous decision. Having reached that decision, Joseph Smith then issued an order, as mayor, to carry out the Council's decision. As described in the Church's 2011 Priesthood/Relief Society manual:
On June 10, 1844, Joseph Smith, who was the mayor of Nauvoo, and the Nauvoo city council ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor and the press on which it was printed. [20]
History of the Church also describes this event [21]:
I [Joseph Smith] immediately ordered the Marshal to destroy it [the Nauvoo Expositor] without delay, and at the same time issued an order to Jonathan Dunham, acting Major-General of the Nauvoo Legion, to assist the Marshal with the Legion, if called upon so to do." [22]
The First Amendment is irrelevant to this discussion. In 1844, the First Amendment only applied to federal law; it had no application to state or local law until the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War.
Critical sources |
|
What caused William Law to apostatize from the Church and turn against Joseph Smith?
William Law in 1836: "I assure you I have found [Joseph Smith] honest and honourable in all our transactions which have been very considerable"
A Canadian, William Law joined the Church in 1836 and moved to Nauvoo in 1839. After having lived near Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, William wrote to a friend:
I have carefully watched his movements since I have been here, and I assure you I have found him honest and honourable in all our transactions which have been very considerable. I believe he is an honest upright man, and as to his follies let who ever is guiltless throw the first stone at him, I shant do it.[23]
William Law in 1844: "I cannot fellowship the abominations which I verily know are practiced by this man [Joseph]"
- 8 January 1844
- William Law released as Second Counselor in the First Presidency; Joseph Smith noted that William "was injuring him by telling evil of him…" William considered his release to be "illegal," since he had been called "by revelation," but wrote "I cannot fellowship the abominations which I verily know are practiced by this man [Joseph], consequently I am glad to be free from him."[24]
One of William’s key concerns seems to have revolved around plural marriage
His non-member son, Richard, later recounted:
About the year 1842, he was present at an interview between his father and the Prophet Joseph. The topic under discussion was the doctrine of plural marriage. William Law, with his arms around the neck of the Prophet, was pleading with him to withdraw the doctrine of plural marriage, which he had at that time commenced to teach to some of the brethren, Mr. Law predicting that if Joseph would abandon the doctrine, 'Mormonism' would, in fifty or one hundred years, dominate the Christian world. Mr. Law pleaded for this with Joseph with tears streaming from his eyes. The Prophet was also in tears, but he informed the gentleman that he could not withdraw the doctrine, for God had commanded him to teach it, and condemnation would come upon him if he was not obedient to the commandment.
During the discussion, Joseph was deeply affected. Mr. Richard S. Law says the interview was a most touching one, and was riveted upon his mind in a manner that has kept it fresh and distinct in his memory, as if it had occurred but yesterday.
Mr. Law also says, that he has no doubt that Joseph believed he had received the doctrine of plural marriage from the Lord. The Prophet's manner being exceedingly earnest, so much so, that Mr. Law was convinced that the Prophet was perfectly sincere in his declaration.[25]
William Law was excommunicated
- 18 April 1844
- William Law excommunicated. Austin Cowles of the Nauvoo high council, James Blakeslee, Charles G. Foster, and Francis M. Higbee joined him in leaving the Church, and he was supported in his opposition to Joseph by his brother Wilson.[26] They announced the formation of a ‘reform’ Church based upon Joseph’s teachings up to 1838, with William as president.
William even decided that Joseph Smith’s opposition to Missouri (and the treatment the Saints had received there) was "unChristian"!
The hostile spirit and conduct manifested by Joseph Smith, and many of his associates towards Missouri . . . are decidedly at variance with the true spirit of Christianity, and should not be encouraged by any people, much less by those professing to be the ministers of the gospel of peace.[27]
Williams had financial quarrels with Joseph
William had economic quarrels with Joseph, and was probably too fond of his own financial state, rather than helping the poor of the Church. William and his brother Wilson had bought the higher land on the outskirts of Nauvoo; the Church (through Joseph) owned the land in the river bottom. Joseph declared that new arrivals should purchase lands from the Church (this was in part an effort to help liquidate the Church’s debts), but William objected to this plan as prejudicial to his own financial interests.[28]
Hyrum presented Law and his wife with the revelation on plural marriage, which affected Law greatly
William was probably also troubled by the death of his wife and daughter even after Church leaders had prayed for them. Hyrum presented Law and his wife with the revelation on plural marriage. Long after the fact, William reported his reaction:
Hyrum gave it [the revelation] to me in his office, told me to take it home and read it, and then be careful with it, and bring it back again…[My wife Jane] and I were just turned upside down by it…We did not know what to do.[29]
Law ultimately called Joseph a "demon"
It is not clear whether Jane and William Law were ever sealed. Alexander Neibaur and Hyrum Smith both reported that Joseph told William he could not seal him to Jane because the Lord forbade it; Neibaur indicated that this was because William was "a Adulterous person."[30] There is no evidence of this other than Neibaur's statement however.
In the clash that followed, William began "casting the first stone," at Joseph’s supposed failings, and the man which he had once admired as honourable and without cause for complaint became, in his newspaper, a "demon," a power-mad tyrant, a seducer, and someone who contributed to the early death of young women.
Did Joseph Smith or his associates attempt to reconcile with William Law before he published the Nauvoo Expositor?
Prior to the publication of the Expositor, Hyrum Smith, Almon W. Babbitt, and Sidney Rigdon attempted to reconcile William Law to the Church
William Law announced he would reconcile only under the condition that Joseph publicly state that the practice of polygamy was "from Hell":
I told him [Sidney] that if they wanted peace they could have it on the following conditions, That Joseph Smith would acknowledge publicly that he had taught and practised the doctrine of plurality of wives, that he brought a revelation supporting the doctrine, and that he should own the whole system (revelation and all) to be from Hell.[31]
The Nauvoo Expositor declared that Joseph was ""blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape"
Shortly afterward, on 7 June 1844, the first (and only) edition of the Nauvoo Expositor was published. It detailed Joseph’s practice of plural marriage, and charged him with various crimes, labeling him a "blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape" and "a syncophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history...one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."[32]
How was the decision reached to destroy the Nauvoo Expositor?
Destruction of Expositor
- 8 June 1844
- Nauvoo city council meets regarding the Expositor.
- 10 June 1844
- The city council declares the Expositor a public nuisance and threat to the peace. This was not mere exaggeration; there were sixteen episodes of mob violence against controversial newspapers in Illinois from 1832 to 1867, and so the leaders’ fears of civil unrest were likely well-founded. The city council therefore ordered the press and the paper destroyed.[33]
- This was done. The decision to suppress the Expositor, while legal for the day, worsened a tense situation (in the years following the Expositor suppression, similar tactics would be used in 1862, 1893, 1918, and 1927).[34]
Historically, presses which violated community ideas of what was proper were a genuine risk to the public peace. Elijah Lovejoy, an anti-slavery editor of The Saint Louis Observer was killed by a pro-slavery mob in 1837.[35]
- Joseph and the city council might well have had memories of what happened in Missouri when some members of the Church became frustrated with the lack of legal redress for their mistreatment by Missouri citizens.
Missouri probably also set the stage for the legal decision to suppress the press. In 1833, the Evening and Morning Star, the LDS paper in Independence, was subject to being "razed to the ground" at the unanimous decision of the mob committee established to drive out the Mormons.[36] The mob's ultimatum later stipulated that the Mormons were not to publish anything before leaving.[37]
- The law of the day probably gave Joseph and the council the right to destroy the offending issue; however, since they had also ordered the press and type destroyed, they violated property laws. Joseph later said he would be happy to pay for the damages.[38] Critics are inconsistent when they complain about the Nauvoo city council's decision to suppress the Expositor (an action that was legal) and yet do not also acknowledge that Mormon presses had been destroyed by mobs acting with no legal authority whatever.
- Despite the fact that the Expositor's suppression was legal, the destruction of the press appeared high-handed to Church critics, and other newspapers began to call for the Mormons’ expulsion or destruction. Joseph and others were arrested on charges of "riot."
Why did the Nauvoo City Council feel it was necessary to destroy the Nauvoo Expositor?
One member recorded that Joseph told him that the destruction of the press was necessary for the Saints’ safety
It is claimed that Joseph "could not allow the Expositor to publish the secret international negotiations masterminded by Mormonism’s earthly king." [39]
The reality was that the Joseph and the City Council were concerned that the paper would cause turmoil among the Saints.
One member stated,
Brother Joseph called a meeting at his own house and told us that God showed to him in an open vision in daylight [meaning that this was not something he had just conjured up in dreams of the night] that if he did not destroy that printing press that it would cause the blood of the Saints to flow in the streets and by this was that evil destroyed.[40]
Joseph foresaw his own death as a result of the turmoil that was already occurring
Given Joseph’s numerous presentiments of his own death, it may well be that he knowingly chose this course of action to spare the members’ lives at the cost of his own. Said Joseph to Elizabeth Rollins:
I must seal my testimony with my blood.[41]
And later:
Some has supposed that Br Joseph Could not die but this is a mistake it is true their has been times when I have had the promise of my life to accomplish such & such things, but having accomplish those things I have not at present any lease of my life I am as liable to die as other men.[42]
What was John C. Bennett's role in the events leading up to the death of Joseph Smith?
The apostasy of John C. Bennett
- May 1842
- John C. Bennett is tried before a Church court. He confessed to "wicked and licentious conduct toward certain females in Nauvoo,"[43] and of past acts of exploiting of women he had attended as a doctor. He may also have performed abortions.[44] He had also frequented, and perhaps operated, a brothel.[45] (Bennett was not alone in this; with his encouragement Chauncy and Francis Higbee—who would write attacks on Joseph Smith in the Nauvoo Expositor—also participated in immoral acts and were disciplined for it.)
Bennett claimed that the doctrines he was using to seduce women in Nauvoo were the same as those taught privately by Joseph Smith with regard to plural marriage
Bennett’s apostasy caused particular problems because he claimed that the doctrines he was using to seduce women in Nauvoo were the same as those taught privately by Joseph Smith with regard to plural marriage. Thus, Joseph and the Church spent a great deal of time denying Bennett’s charges, while trying to keep plural marriage from becoming common knowledge for fear of the Church’s enemies.
Bennett left the Church and Nauvoo, and spoke widely about the "evils" of the Church and its leaders to non-member audiences. He also wrote a book and made a good deal of money telling stories against the Mormons; he was later to be associated with Sidney Rigdon’s splinter group and the "Strangite" break-off group, but he soon left them as well.
Orson F. Whitney said this about Bennett:
In May, 1842, the treachery and rascality of a man whom the Mormon leader had befriended and loaded with honors, became known to his benefactor. That man was Dr. John C. Bennett, Mayor of Nauvoo, Chancellor of its University, and Major-General of its legion. He had become associated with the Saints soon after their exodus from Missouri. Though a great egotist, he was a man of education, address and ability. That he had little or no principle was not immediately apparent. Considerable of a diplomat and possessing some influence in political circles, he rendered valuable aid in securing the passage by the Illinois Legislature of the act incorporating the city of Nauvoo. Hence the honors bestowed upon him by the Mormon people. Prior to that, and subsequently, he was Quartermaster-General of Illinois. Bennett professed great sympathy for the Saints. He joined the Church and apparently was a sincere convert to the faith.
Governor Thomas Ford, in his history of Illinois, styles Bennett "probably the greatest scamp in the western country." But this was not until long after the Mormons, thrice victimized, had become aware of his villainy.[46]
Was Joseph Smith responsible for an assassination attempt on former Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs?
An unknown assailant shot former Missouri governor Boggs through his window, severely wounding him
- 6 May 1842
- an unknown assailant shoots former Missouri governor Boggs through his window, severely wounding him. Later, John C. Bennett encourages Boggs to press charges against the Mormons for their alleged role in the attack.
It was assumed that Orin Porter Rockwell and the Latter-day Saints were responsible for the shooting
- 8 August 1842
- a warrant is issued for Joseph Smith’s extradition to Missouri to face charges in the attempted murder of Boggs; the claim is that Joseph Smith was an "accessory before the fact," and encouraged Orin Porter Rockwell in the deed. Joseph easily proved he had been in Illinois on the day of the shooting (hundreds of miles from Missouri) and obtains a writ of habeas corpus.
- December 1842
- the state Supreme Court of Illinois finds that the writ voiding the governor’s warrant was illegal. However, Joseph went before a federal judge to again challenge the warrant, and this court found that the warrant "lacked foundation" since it went beyond the statements which Boggs had made in his affidavit. The state Legislative Assembly considers repeal of the Nauvoo charter, but does nothing.
- February 1843
- Joseph Smith announces he will run for President of the United States.
- June 1843
- Missouri again attempted to extradite Joseph for trial. Joseph proceeded to Nauvoo, was welcomed by cheering crowds, and was again granted a writ of habeas corpus by the Nauvoo municipal court, voiding the warrant. The city council then made it illegal to arrest Joseph within Nauvoo, and gave the mayor (Joseph Smith, since the excommunicatin of Bennett) power to approve any outside warrants. This only increased the non-Mormons’ sense that Joseph was combining religious and civil power in an effort to put himself "beyond the law."
- 12 July 1843
- Joseph dictates the first written record of the revelations on plural marriage: D&C 132.
What is the timeline of events that led to Joseph Smith's death in Carthage?
There were attempts to arrest Joseph after the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor
- 13 June 1844
- The Nauvoo municipal court released Joseph on a writ of habeas corpus, finding that the charge of "riot" was unsubstantiated since the destruction of the press had been orderly.
- 14 June 1844
- Thus cleared, Joseph Smith (as mayor) took his seat as judge over the municipal court, and cleared all others charged the day following his own release. This recurrent mix of religious, executive, and judicial power again infuriated the anti-Mormons.
- 17 June 1844
- Joseph and others consented to be brought before another court, headed by a (then non-Mormon) justice of the peace, Daniel H. Wells. Wells again discharged them, but did not have the authority to acquit them.
- 18 June 1844
- Joseph Smith declares martial law in Nauvoo and calls out the militia to protect the city from anti-Mormon mobs.
Governor Ford writes to tell Joseph that he must face charges
- 22 June 1844
- Governor Ford writes to tell Joseph that he must face charges before the same judge that issued the writ for his arrest, because only this will appease the public. This requires Joseph to appear in a very hostile community, where feelings against the Mormons run high.
- 23 June 1844
- Joseph and Hyrum leave Nauvoo to seek refuge over the Mississippi. Some members appeal to Joseph to return, believing (contrary to Joseph’s promise) that the members of the Church would be despoiled and driven out if he did not. Joseph agrees to return, stating, "If my life is of no value to my friends it is of none to myself."
Governor Ford guaranteed the safety of Joseph and others if they went to Carthage
- 25 June 1844
- the state governor (Thomas Ford) believed that only a state trial would calm the furor over the Expositor. Joseph and fifteen others therefore received guarantees of safety and presented themselves in Carthage. They were freed on bail pending the October arrival of the circuit court. However, Joseph and Hyrum were jailed by a writ issued by Robert F. Smith, a Methodist minister, justice of the peace, and captain of the Carthage Greys militia. Joseph and Hyrum were accompanied to the jail by John Taylor, Willard Richards, Dan Jones, Stephen Markham, and John S. Fullmer. The latter three left to run errands, and were not readmitted, leaving only Joseph, Hyrum, John Taylor, and Willard Richards.
- 26 June 1844
- Governor Ford meets with the prisoners. He then disbands all the militia companies, except the hostile Carthage Greys.
Governor Ford left the hostile Carthage Greys to guard the jail
- 27 June 1844
- Ford leaves for Nauvoo, leaving two companies of Carthage Greys to guard the jail, while Ford takes a third to Nauvoo. He did not keep his promise that the prisoners could go with him to Nauvoo. After Ford’s departure, the discharged Warsaw militia company attacked the jail. The Carthage Greys gave only token resistance; they had loaded their weapons with gunpowder but no bullets. The Warsaw company stormed the jail, and murdered Joseph and Hyrum. John Taylor was severely injured; Willard Richards was unharmed.