<onlyinclude>

1. REDIRECTJoseph Smith's trustworthiness

Response to claim: 211, 549n29 (PB) - Did Orson Hyde say that it was OK to "steal & be influenced by the spirit of the Lord to do it" as long as it was against non-Mormons?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did Orson Hyde say that it was OK to "steal & be influenced by the spirit of the Lord to do it" as long as it was against non-Mormons?

Author's sources: Orson Hyde. Quoted in John Bennion, "John Bennion Journal," under October 13, 1860; cf. Brigham Young Office Journal, April 3, 1860.

FAIR's Response

Question: Did Orson Hyde state that it was permissible to "steal & be influenced by the spirit of the Lord to do it" as long as it was against non-Mormons?

Orson Hyde's remark is relative to William "Wild Bill" Hickman

The Brigham Young office journal for 3 April 1860 states:

[April 3, 1860:] April 3, p. 70 Mayor Smoot had a conversation with the President about W[illia]m A. Hickman, observing people see him come and out the office, and that leads them to suppose he is sanctioned in all he does by the President he also observed that dogs were necessary to take care of the flock, but if the Shepherd's dogs hurt the sheep it would be time to remove them.

President observed W. A. Hickman was in the hands of the Lord and he believes he was interested in this latter day work, and he believed whether he was wounded or whether he recovered, or whether he died these events were in the hands of the Lord.^[1]

Because Hickman had served Brigham Young during the Utah War, some presumed that Hickman's later activities (especially horse-thieving) were sanctioned by the Church

Yet, prior to the journal entry above, Church leaders had been railing (in public and private) against Hickman's gang and its criminal activities:

Brigham Young wrote: "December 26, 1859. About 1:00 p.m. yesterday, a disgraceful affair occurred on Main Street near the Townsend Hotel. A difficulty between Wm. A. Hickman and Lott Huntington over the division of some stolen property. Hickman and his party retired to Hickman's son-in-law, and a physician was sent for."^[2]:89

Brigham clearly disapproves of Hickman's activities

This entry was made privately; this was not Brigham Young speaking publicly to provide "plausible deniability." Here he clearly disapproves of Hickman's activities. Apostle Amasa Lyman was also preaching publicly against Hickman's activities:

The spirit of thieving stalks the land--gets hold of unguarded youth, causes them to steal from neighbors. Don't let your sons be corrupted--know where they are--Many deceive, not just Bill Hickman and his gang. Sons go into the streets of the city only to hear that stealing from Gentiles is "OK," and are told that the President of the Church says so--all lies to lead the unwary from the truth.^[2]:89

Hickman wrote to Brigham insisting that when "my Bro[ther] told me what you said, [it] made the cold sweat run off me and I almost sank under it." The prophet and Hickman exchanged further letters, with Hickman insisting that he didn't drink that much whiskey, that he had never been seen drunk in public, that he could quit anytime he wanted to if Brigham felt it best, that he knew he used profane language but hardly ever the Lord's name in vain, and that he supported the Church and Brigham Young.^[2]:89-92

At this time, Hickman was suffering from a bullet wound, which would plague him for the rest of his life. Doctors despaired of his life. Thus, it is in this context that Brigham's journal notes that whether he lives or dies is in God's hands.

Hickman was disfellowshipped

Hickman's bishop disfellowshipped him only ten days after being shot, after speaking "forcibly on the workers of iniquity," and assuring them that he "would do his duty in those things."^[2]:95

Hickman's neighbor, John Bennion did not feel this was an adequate punishment, and urged excommunication. Bennion's journal is the source for the Orson Hyde quote cited by the author. Bennion recorded that

[August 26, 1860] Bishop Gardner said there was much prejudice against W. A. Hickman and that he knew nothing against him, as nothing had been reported to him officially. He intimated that W. A. Hickman was apologetic and that he would stand by him or any other Brother until he knew of their guilt. Hickman being called upon confessed to his weaknesses and foibles like other men, but strongly denied his guilt as to things commonly reported on him, stealing etc. Bishop Gardner requested any who knew anything against Hickman to report to him and to stop running to Bishop Hunter or he would be after them with a sharpstick ^{[check spelling]}.

Thus, Bishop Gardner had disfellowshipped Hickman based on his confession of some wrongs, but had no evidence (save rumor) of the more serious charges.

Saturday, October 13, 1860: Went to the city met Bishop Gardner, had a talk with him about W. A. Hickman's wicked course for sometime past. He said that up until now he had been bound and could not act, I told him I was not bound, neither was I afraid to oppose the wickedness of any man, that it was my duty to expose. We got home about sundown. In the evening I met with the Bishop and his counselors and parties concerned with trying George Hickman for stealing mules. When about to commence the trial, Elder [Orson] Hyde came in and by Bishop Gardner's solicitation he preached and the trial was postponed.

After meeting the Bishop, the counsel, and Elder Hyde had a long talk in my house. Bro. Hyde said, speaking of stealing that a man may steal and be influenced by the spirit of the Lord to do it, that Hickman had done it in years past. Said that he never would institute a trial against a brother for stealing from the Gentiles, but stealing from his brother, he was down on it. He laid down much teaching on the subject.^[2]:95-96

Orson Hyde defended Hickman since he had saved his life in 1849

Wrote Hickman's biographer:

Orson Hyde, a member of the Council of Twelve Apostles, was an important Hickman defender. Hickman had saved his life in 1849, and he could not bring himself to condemn Hickman yet. Even as late as 1872, Hickman would use Hyde's line of reasoning in his own defence: he could not understand why people chastised him when all he did was to steal from the Gentiles.

Bennion attended yet another meeting on the matter of Hickman's church status the next day: "Sunday October 14, 1860: Went to meeting at the mill to hear Bro. Hyde . . . he gave much good instruction, spoke on last night's intention to try Hickman--give it as the word of the Lord to set him free for the past, bid him go and sin no more."^[2]:95-96

Hyde didn't say that the Spirit of the Lord inspired Hickman to steal, but that it was a sin from which he should refrain

Hyde's stance had, therefore, shifted—rather than arguing that the Spirit of the Lord had inspired Hickman to steal, he was willing to grant that the action was a "sin" from which he should henceforth refrain.

Thus, the position argued by Elder Hyde and Hickman does not represent the Church's doctrine and teaching at the time. Hyde even altered his stance—perhaps his zeal to spare Hickman suffering led to an intemperate remark, which he later amended the next day. Bennion, who clearly wanted Hickman punished, seemed content with Hyde's preaching the next day, while he had not been the night before.

Heber C. Kimball contradicted Elder Hyde's remark soon afterward

Furthermore, Heber C. Kimball, a member of the First Presidency, would soon contradict Elder Hyde: Certain ones say that we justify stealing from unbelievers but we do not and they who say so shall be cursed, they shall be poor and vagabounds [sic] on the earth, and all the people said, `Amen.'^[2]:96-97[3]

Orson Hyde wished to pass lightly over Hickman's sins because of the services which Hickman had rendered during Utah's settlement, the Utah War, and the personal debt he owed him. However, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and other church members and leaders were not of the same view, and denounced it. Even Hyde would, within twenty-four hours, amend his stance.

Response to claim: 211, 549n31-34 (PB) - The author claims that the Nauvoo police committed "many murders, vicious beatings, and intimidating assaults" against people that they thought to be enemies of the Church

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that the Nauvoo police committed "many murders, vicious beatings, and intimidating assaults" against people that they thought to be enemies of the Church.

Author's sources: *Allen J. Stout, "Allen J. Stout Journal," under June 28, 1844, Utah State Historical Society, 14, online at http://www.math.byu.edu/~smithw/Lds/LDS/Early-Saints/AStout.html

• Hosea Stout, under February 22, 1845 and March 13, 1847, in Juanita Brooks, ed., On the Mormon Frontier: The Diary of Hosea Stout, vol. 1, 22; 241.
• D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 151, 643.

FAIR's Response

• Use of sources:Nauvoo police violence

Question: Did the Nauvoo police commit "many murders, vicious beatings, and intimidating assaults" against people that they thought to be enemies of the Church?

Nothing in the cited sources provide evidence for these claims

The critical work One Nation Under Gods claims that Nauvoo police committed murders and inflicted beating on those that they thought were enemies of the Church. ^[4] The citations supporting this claim are listed as:

• Allen J. Stout, "Allen J. Stout Journal," under June 28, 1844, Utah State Historical Society, 14, online at http://www.math.byu.edu/~smithw/Lds/LDS/Early-Saints/AStout.html.
• Hosea Stout, under February 22, 1845 and March 13, 1847, in Juanita Brooks, ed., On the Mormon Frontier: The Diary of Hosea Stout, vol. 1, 22; 241.
• D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 151, 643.

Nothing in the cited sources provide evidence for these claims. A best, the expressed desire for vengeance upon Joseph Smith's murderers provides motive for violent acts against those complicit in his assassination. But, no proof of this has been here presented. One Nation Under Gods claims much more than the sources report.

The author's remark about "perceived enemies of the Church" is likewise disingenuous. Surely anyone who participated in Joseph Smith's murder would be a definite enemy of the Church he founded. The author wants to create a portrait of arbitrary and capricious violence—but he has here presented no evidence to sustain that charge.

Examining the source: Quinn

• Nothing on Quinn, 151 supports this claim: it speaks only of
  • Orrin Porter Rockwell's desire (not carried out) to kill apostate Robert D. Foster
  • Allen Stout's report that he would not let Joseph and Hyrum's murders go unavenged
  • Stephen Markham's desire to avenge Joseph's murders

• Quinn, 643 discusses the period from 8 Mar to 18 April 1844, while Joseph Smith was alive. There is no mention of violence of any sort.

Examining the source: Allen Stout

Allen Stout's journal is cited by Quinn. It thus adds nothing.

Examining the source: Hosea Stout

Hosea Stout's journal for 22 February 1844 reads only:

February 22, Saturday. In the morning went to Brother J. P. Harmon's there met Bishop [George] Miller, when we three went to the [Nauvoo] temple while consulting on matters pertaining to our safety and also the manner to pursue to rid ourselves of traitors who are in our midst seeking our lives.

Stout only worries about keeping the Saints safe, and keeping out traitors seeking to cause the death of the Saints. Stout's 13 March 1847 journal reads:

At dark I went to a meeting of the seventies at the Council house. Here J.P. Packer was up before them for a charge of stealing a brace of six shooters by getting them with a forged order. Some was for cutting him off. Some for keeping him on trial for awhile and so on. I spoke quite lengthy on the subject and was for keeping him in fellowship as I could fellowship any man that could be suffered to live amongst us and when we could not stand it any longer to cut him off –behind the ears- according to the law of God in such cases. I came home about twelve o’clock at night.

Stout here advocates mercy for a member guilty of stealing weapons through fraud. Stout does argue that there are crimes for which people may be killed ("cut...off-behind the ears") under divine law. Examples could include murder: Genesis 9:6, Alma 42꞉19, D&C 42꞉19.) There is nothing about this citation which supports the book's claim that the leaders or members of the Church generally advocated killing those who were the church's "enemies." The criminal in this case is guilty of theft—a civil crime. And even then, Stout does not advocate excommunication, much less judicial murder. As his previous entry shows, those "seeking our lives" might be subject to more severe justice. Such an attitude toward plotted or attempted murder is not at all out of place on the 19th-century American frontier, as two frontier legal scholars noted:

Under English common law...a person who was assailed and in fear of death or great bodily injury was required, if at all possible, to flee the scene and thus avoid a confrontation....

But American pioneers had no use for that kind of thinking...."A man is not born to run away." Those were the words used by U.S. Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to explain the rationale of his 1921 Supreme Court opinion in Brown v. United States, which rejected the English common law doctrine of 'duty to retreat' in favor of a rule more in tune with the combative spirit of the American frontier—the 'stand your ground' rule. In the Brown opinion, Holmes went on to explain that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."^[5]

Response to claim: 212, 549n35-37 (PB) - "Although the exact number of murders committed by Mormons between 1844 and 1846 remains unknown, it is certain that a majority of them were handled by Danites"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

 Author's quote: "Although the exact number of murders committed by Mormons between 1844 and 1846 remains unknown, it is certain that a majority of them were handled by Danites Porter Rockwell, Hosea Stout, and Allen Stout."

Author's sources:

• History of the Church, vol. 7, 446-447.
• D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 653.
• George Rockwell, letter to Thomas Rockwell, September 23, 1845. Quoted in D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 181..

FAIR's Response

• Loaded and prejudicial language

Response to claim: 213, 549n38 (PB) - The author claims that Heber C. Kimball and Orson Hyde ordered Nauvoo's police force to kill an apostate named Lambert Symes, who "subsequently disappeared without a trace"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Heber C. Kimball and Orson Hyde ordered Nauvoo's police force to kill an apostate named Lambert Symes, who "subsequently disappeared without a trace"

Author's sources: D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 181.

FAIR's Response

Question: Did Heber C. Kimball and Orson Hyde order Nauvoo's police force to kill an apostate named Lambert Symes?

There is no record of anyone named "Lambert Symes" in Nauvoo's records

The author of One Nation Under Gods claim that Heber C. Kimball and Orson Hyde "actually ordered Nauvoo's police force to kill apostate Lambert Symes, who subsequently disappeared without a trace." ^[6]. The author cites D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 181. in support of this claim. However, One Nation Under Gods misrepresents the source on multiple accounts:

• Only Heber C. Kimball was charged with making "Lambert Symes" disappear
• We are not told that this charge came from Jehiel Savage, an apostate who was supporting James Strang's break-off movement.
• We are not told that Quinn also wrote: "Savage said it was 'Lambert Symes' who thus disappeared, but I have been unable to find anyone by that name in Nauvoo's records."^{[7]:181 n. 194}

Thus, the author gets the claim wrong, we have only an apostate's account as evidence, and there is no evidence whatever that the person who supposedly 'disappeared' ever existed. Furthermore, as D. Michael Quinn notes (and ONUG likewise fails to tell us):

Nauvoo was not littered with corpses of dissenters, the most strident of whom lived long lives in opposition to Brigham Young.^[7]:181

There were many vocal, powerful, and well-known anti-Mormons around Nauvoo at the period. If Heber C. Kimball was going to have one of them killed, why pick someone so insignificant that his existence cannot even be confirmed? Why not someone with more power or prominence, to put fear in the others? Why did no one in Nauvoo notice this supposed murder?

Response to claim: 213, 550n41-43 - "Mormon dissenter" Irvine Hodge was "presumably" murdered by Nauvoo policemen

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

*Was "Mormon dissenter" Irvine Hodge "presumably" murdered by Nauvoo policemen because he threatened to "expose every Mormon who had been involved in stealing from non-Mormons" and threatened to harm Brigham Young and a Nauvoo policeman?

Author's sources: *William Hall, The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed, 31-34.

• D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 217, 651.
• Brigham Young. Quoted on an undated page of statements by Jehiel Savage, Charles B. Thompson, George J. Adams, and Joseph Younger.

FAIR's Response

Question: Was Irvine Hodge murdered by Nauvoo policemen?

The statement allegedly made by Brigham Young actually comes from a Strangite high council record

The critical book One Nation Under Gods claims that "Mormon dissenter" Irvine Hodge was "presumably" murdered by Nauvoo policemen because he threatened to "expose every Mormon who had been involved in stealing from non-Mormons." ^[8] The author cites the following sources to support his claim:

• William Hall, The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed, 31-34.
• D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 217, 651.
• Brigham Young. Quoted on an undated page of statements by Jehiel Savage, Charles B. Thompson, George J. Adams, and Joseph Younger.

The author neglects to tell us that the "Brigham Young" statement he quotes is part of a document that is "(apparently in the same handwriting) of the minutes of the high council at Voree, Wisconsin, 6 Apr. 1846, of the followers of James J. Strang, Document 6, Strang Manuscripts, Beinecke Library" [Quinn, 217 n. 173]. So, this is yet another of the Strangite claims about violence upon which the author relies — often without disclosing it. The Brigham Young statement is therefore hearsay, and even the portion quoted by Quinn says nothing of Hodge's threats to reveal secrets or harm others. The author's presentation of it as a source is misleading.

Brigham Young asked the dying man "Who stabbed you?"

The author says only that Hodge was murdered because of his threats against Brigham Young, Nauvoo policemen, and threats to tell about thefts from non-Mormons. Yet, even the author's source provides more detail:

[William] Smith was a friend of Hodge's brothers, who were under arrest in Iowa for robbery and murder. [William] had warned the Hodge brothers to avoid arrest by fleeing Nauvoo, where they were apprehended. Then Smith had tried to get the Nauvoo police to allow the men to escape and even attempted to provide bail for one of the accused murderers. Furious that Nauvoo authorities had aided in the arrest of his brothers, Hodge threatened to expose everyone involved with them in stealing from non-Mormons.^[9]

Thus, there was much more to the story—Hodge wanted the Mormons to help two accused robbers/murderers thwart justice. Only when they refused did he attempt to blackmail them. Hodge is not a simple 'upstanding citizen' being silenced because he wants to be a whistle-blower on Mormon perfidy.

One Nation Under Gods also does not tell us that Brigham Young asked the dying man "Who stabbed you?" but "with Nauvoo policemen standing over him, Hodge refused to answer."^[10] Thus, if the police were guilty of the murder (here Quinn and the author are frank enough to admit this is a presumption) there is evidence which may help exonerate Brigham Young. If Young ordered the murder, why be on hand to meet the dying man?

Response to claim: 213, 550n44-45 (PB) - The author asserts that members of the Council of Fifty responsible for committing murders

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author asserts that members of the Council of Fifty responsible for committing murders.

Author's sources: *Oliver B. Huntington, statement in "Seymour B. Young Diary," under May 23, 1903.

• Clayton, under July 5, 1845.
• D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 179.

FAIR's Response

Question: Did the Council of Fifty order homicides to be committed?

This claim misrepresents the cited sources

The author of One Nation Under Gods claims that "other homicides were taken care of by members of the Council of Fifty." ^[11] The author cites the following sources:

• Oliver B. Huntington, statement in "Seymour B. Young Diary," under May 23, 1903.
• Clayton, under July 5, 1845.
• D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 179.

This claim, however, misrepresents the cited sources.

Huntington's statement was about the supposed suicide of the former head of the Nauvoo Legion

As shown elsewhere, Huntington's statement was about the supposed suicide of the former head of the Nauvoo Legion. It has nothing to do with Council of Fifty members committing "homicides."

Quinn's source discusses how some anti-Mormons were "maimed" after a member of the Council of Fifty sabotaged a canon

Quinn's source discusses how some anti-Mormons were "maimed" after a member of the Council of Fifty (Cyrus Daniels) sabotaged a canon. This is not a homicide. Quinn's source is Clayton's diary, so Clayton adds nothing extra.

Quinn also mentions that "within months Orrin Porter Rockwell...took vengeance upon a man who had helped kill the prophet."^[12] Yet, Quinn provides no citation for this claim at all—it cannot be verified. He may be referring to an event in which the non-Mormon sheriff Jacob Backenstos was being pursued by Frank Worrell on horseback.

Worrell was a member of the Carthage Greys and commander of the guard at Joseph Smith's prison. Worrell and three others pursued Backenstos, who called to Rockwell and others for help. "At Backenstos' command, Rockwell singled out Worrell, took careful aim, and shot him squarely in the belt buckle, knocking him out of the saddle." His companions took their wounded leader to Warsaw, where he died.^[13]

Backenstos was indicted and tried for murder by a non-Mormon jury. Non-Mormon testimony at the trial indicated that "Worrell knew he was following Backenstos and that he planned to kill him." Rockwell was likewise indicted and acquitted for the murder, since he was acting under Backenstos' orders.^[14] Thus, even this event is not "homicide," an act of vengeance, or an inappropriate use of deadly force.

The claim that "members of the Council of Fifty" "took care" of other "homicides" is unsupported

Even if we grant Quinn's unsourced claim, this still only gives us one member of the Council of Fifty (Orrin Porter Rockwell) as guilty of a single homicide. ONUG's claim that "members of the Council of Fifty" "took care" of other "homicides" is unsupported.

Response to claim: 213, 550n44 (PB) - Was Jonathan Dunham killed because he had "ignored the prophet's direct order to lead the Nauvoo Legion in a rescue at Carthage Jail"?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Was Jonathan Dunham killed because he had "ignored the prophet's direct order to lead the Nauvoo Legion in a rescue at Carthage Jail"?

Author's sources: Oliver B. Huntington, statement in "Seymour B. Young Diary," under May 23, 1903; see D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 179.

FAIR's Response

1. REDIRECTJoseph Smith's qualification as a martyr#Question: Did Joseph order Jonathan Dunham, head of the Nauvoo legion, to rescue him?

Notes

1. ↑ From "Office Journals of Brigham Young--Excerpts, 1853-62," New Mormon Studies CD-ROM (Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates).
2. ↑ ^{2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6} Cited in Hope A. Hilton, "Wild Bill" Hickman and the Mormon Frontier (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1988)
3. ↑ Compare with Heber C. Kimball, (23 August 1857) Journal of Discourses 5:171.
4. ↑ Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, Endnote 31-34, page 551 (hardback); page 549 (paperback).
5. ↑ Bill Neal and Morris Bakken, Getting Away with Murder on the Texas Frontier: Notorious Killings & Celebrated Trials (Texas Tech University Press, 2006), 14–15.
6. ↑ Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, Endnote 38, page 551 (hardback); page 549 (paperback)
7. ↑ ^{7.0 7.1} D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), {{{pages}}}.
8. ↑ Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, Endnote 41-43, page 552 (hardback); page 550 (paperback).
9. ↑ D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 217.
10. ↑ D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 217.
11. ↑ Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, Endnote 44-45, page 552 (hardback); page 550 (paperback).
12. ↑ D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 179.
13. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks and Marvin S. Hill, Carthage Conspiracy, the Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1979), 195. ISBN 025200762X.
14. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks and Marvin S. Hill, Carthage Conspiracy, the Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1979), 200. ISBN 025200762X.

Response to claim: 214, 550n46 - The author asserts that Nauvoo Police Chief Hosea Stout have three men flogged because they "were not in good fellowship"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author asserts that Nauvoo Police Chief Hosea Stout have three men flogged because they "were not in good fellowship."

Author's sources: Hosea Stout, under September 14, 1845, in Brooks, vol. 1, 63.

FAIR's Response

Question: Did Hosea Stout have three men flogged because they "were not in good fellowship"?

The Nauvoo police did not threaten others because they were "not in good fellowship"

Stout's journal entry begins:

[September] 14, Sunday. Went with my wife to meeting at the Stand. H. [Heber] C. Kimball and Brigham Young preached about the mob burning houses and gave the Saints advice what to do under the present trying circumstances; at intermission I met the Eleventh Quorum near the Stand, and then in the afternoon attended meeting.^[1]

The problems begin at the afternoon meeting:

It was a business meeting and all who were not in good fellowship were not allowed to be present and the police in keeping them away had to flog three who were determined to stay.^[2]

Thus, the Nauvoo police did not threaten others because they were "not in good fellowship." There was no problem with these men being in town, or attending the morning preaching.

The men who were flogged were refusing to leave a private meeting to which they were not invited and not entitled to attend

However, the afternoon meeting was "a business meeting." The Saints did not have an indoor assembly hall large enough to accommodate them, so meetings were held out of doors. The men "out of fellowship" who were flogged were refusing to leave a private meeting to which they were not invited and not entitled to attend.

The conclusion of Stout's diary entry probably illustrates why the Saints were so determined that their enemies not be present at their business meeting, during which plans for defense of the city and citizens were probably a topic:

After police meeting I went with Colonel [John] Scott to see [General] Rich; after some consultation with them we concluded that it was best to post a guard below the city to prevent any person from going in or out to correspond with the mob, as some were trying to make a difficulty in the name of the Mormons.^[3]

These floggings did not occur in a peaceful, tranquil, 21st century city

This was a nineteenth-century frontier town, surrounded by hostile enemies who were burning out-lying Mormon homes and who would again drive the Saints from Illinois in winter weather. The Saints had to make plans to maintain the peace of their city—plans which could be compromised if apostates or dissidents were aware of them. Those "out of fellowship" might also use what they learned at the business meeting to perform acts for which the Mormons could be "framed," giving their enemies a justification for further attacks and military action.

Violence only occurred after the three dissidents refused to leave a meeting to which they were not invited

The author often relies on Quinn, though he here does not cite him. Quinn writes,

In the fall of 1845, Mormon enforcers became openly violent in their approach toward dissenters. On 14 September Hosea Stout recorded that Nauvoo's police "had to flog" three men "who were not in good fellowship" but had tried to attend an open air "business meeting" of the church....These incidents were occurring at public meetings of the church during daylight hours.^[4]

Like the author, Quinn's treatment is inadequate. He fails to note that Stout did nothing to prevent those out of fellowship from attending public preaching meetings, and says nothing about the security situation in which the Church members found themselves. He tells us nothing about the fact that violence only occurred after the three dissidents refused to leave a meeting to which they were not invited.

The partial use of sources can sometimes lead to an inaccurate view of the complete picture.

Response to claim: 214, 550n49-51 - The author states that outsiders who were not "murdered or severely beaten" instead "whittled" out of town by Brigham's 'Whistling and Whittling Brigade'"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author states that outsiders who were not "murdered or severely beaten" instead "whittled" out of town by Brigham's 'Whistling and Whittling Brigade.'" Was the "Whistling and Whittling Brigade" a "violent gang of Mormons" that were "in good standing with the church?"

Author's sources:

• William B. Pace, William B. Pace Autobiography. Quoted in Dean Moody, "Nauvoo's Whistling and Whittling Brigade," BYU Studies (Summer 1975), vol. 15, 487. BYU Studies article PDF]
•  Citation error: should be "Thurmon Dean Moody."
• Jehiel Savage statement in minutes of the high council of James Strang's followers at Voree, Wisconsin, April 6, 1846.
• Hosea Stout, under April 27, 1845, in Brooks, vol. 1, 36.

FAIR's Response

• Whistling and Whittling Brigades

Response to claim: 216-217, 552n62-65 (HB)
550n62-65 (PB) - The author claims that government records indicate that Brigham Young, Willard Richards, Parley Pratt, in counterfeiting

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that government records indicate that Brigham Young, Willard Richards, Parley Pratt, and Orson Hyde were involved in making counterfeit coins "under Joseph's leadership"?

Author's sources:

• Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Mormon Kingdom, vol. 2, 51-64.
• D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 127, 650-651.
• Warsaw Signal, June 5, 1844.
• St Louis American, December 2, 1845.

FAIR's Response

Question: Are there government records that prove that the apostles were involved in counterfeiting in Nauvoo?

There are no "government records" which prove that the apostles "were involved in making counterfeit coins"

The book One Nation Under Gods claims that government records indicate that Brigham Young, Willard Richards, Parley Pratt, and Orson Hyde were involved in making counterfeit coins, and that this may have "started under Joseph's leadership." ^[5] The author cites the following sources to support his claim:

• Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Mormon Kingdom, vol. 2, 51-64.
• D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 127, 650-651.
• Warsaw Signal, June 5, 1844.
• St Louis American, December 2, 1845.

There are no "government records" which prove that the apostles "were involved in making counterfeit coins" At best, there is an indictment from a local grand jury, but an indictment is not proof—and, it is unlikely that indictment was anything but a ploy to make sure the Mormons left.

Of three men accused, two are non-Mormons, and the third was criticized by Hyrum Smith for this practice after his eventual apostasy

On page 127, Quinn mentions three men who either passed counterfeit money or who were accused of counterfeiting—yet, two are non-Mormons, and the third was criticized by Hyrum Smith for this practice after his eventual apostasy.

On pages 650-651, Quinn mentions two items that relate to counterfeiting:

• 24 Mar. [1845] A disaffected Mormon writes that Theodore Turley, of the Council of Fifty, has prepared a press in Nauvoo for counterfeiting, and that Turley gave the man a counterfeit $5.00 bill. [650]
• 4 June. [1845] Young and Kimball learn that Warren Snow and Dominicus Carter have been jailed in Quincy, Illinois, for passing counterfeit money. Bishop Joseph L. Heywood confirms that they are guilty. In Utah Snow would become a bishop and Carter a member of a stake presidency. [651]

None of this associates Joseph Smith (or any of the named apostles) with approving or conducting counterfeiting in any way

That Snow and Carter later held church leadership positions says nothing about official sanction for their actions in Nauvoo—repentance is a firm tenet of the Church.

The "government documents" to which the author refers (via the Tanners) date from 1846 and appear to be a ploy to provide incentive for the Saints to leave Nauvoo

The grand jury of the United States district court of Springfield, Illinois, in January 1846, issued twelve indictments against prominent Church leaders for counterfeiting United States coin. [Niles' National Register, January 3, 1846.] This action was generally thought to be a ploy on the part of the government to make certain that the Saints would keep their promise to leave Nauvoo in the spring. Church leaders issued a circular in which they denied the charge of counterfeiting. They reiterated that they expected the migration to begin early in March. [Missouri Reporter, February 5, 1846.] They then went into hiding and refused to give themselves up for trial.^[6]

Response to claim: 217 - The author claims that Brigham chose to start the exodus westward early because he was faced with the possibility of counterfeiting charges

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Brigham chose to start the exodus westward early because he was faced with the possibility of counterfeiting charges.

Author's sources: No source provided.

FAIR's Response

• Loaded and prejudicial language

Response to claim: 220, 553n77 (HB) - Brigham "proudly admitted" "'I have been your dictator for twenty-seven years--over a quarter of a century I have dictated this people'"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Brigham "proudly admitted" "'I have been your dictator for twenty-seven years--over a quarter of a century I have dictated this people.'"

Author's sources: Brigham Young, August 13, 1871, Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, 205.

FAIR's Response

Question: Did Brigham Young "proudly admit" to being a dictator?

President Young was speaking about spiritual matters, not political matters

The book One Nation Under Gods claims that Brigham Young, although officially a governor, acted more like a dictator than anything else, and that he "proudly admitted" as much during an 1871 sermon, saying: "'I have been your dictator for twenty-seven years--over a quarter of a century I have dictated this people.'"

In an attempt to show that Brigham Young was the political dictator of the Territory of Utah, the author has quoted from a speech of Brigham Young recorded in the Journal of Discourses. Does the context of the quote indicate that President Young "proudly admitted" to being a political dictator? The full quote, in context, is reproduced here (the portion in bold is the quote used by the author).

But to return to my question to the Saints, "How are you going to know about the will and commands of heaven?" By the Spirit of revelation; that is the only way you can know. How do I know but what I am doing wrong? How do I know but what we will take a course for our utter ruin? I sometimes say to my brethren, "I have been your dictator for twenty-seven years-over a quarter of a century I have dictated this people; that ought to be some evidence that my course is onward and upward. But how do you know that I may not yet do wrong? How do you know but I will bring in false doctrine and teach the people lies that they may be damned? Sisters can you tell the difference? I can say this for the Latter-day Saints, and I will say it to their praise and my satisfaction, if I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, "I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! What did Brother Brigham mean? That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!" All these observations would be made by the people, yes, even by the sisters. It would not sit well on the stomach, that is, on the spiritual stomach, if you think you have one. It would not sit well on the mind, for you are seeking after the things of God; you have started out for life and salvation, and with all their ignorance, wickedness and failings, the majority of this people are doing just as well as they know how; and I will defy any man to preach false doctrine without being detected.

In other words, President Young was speaking about spiritual matters, not political matters. Yet, the author tries to equate President Young's quote with political dictatorship--a clear misuse of his source.

In today's society, the common definition of "dictator" carries a pejorative connotation. This is a direct outgrowth of twentieth-century world politics, particularly World War II, where the United States, with her allies, faced down dictatorial regimes. Consider the primary definition of 'dictator' as found in Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary of the English language:

One who dictates; one who prescribes rules and maxims for the direction of others.

This, of course, is the definition that Brigham Young would have been familiar with. He would not have been familiar with the pejorative use of the word that we are familiar with today. This definition is also consistent with the way that religious prophets lead their people. Yet, the author of ONUG tries to capitalize on a negative understanding of 'dictator', and somehow assert that President Young was a political dictator. His use is not consistent with the then-common definition of the word, or with the context in which it was used.

Response to claim: 221-222, 551n84-87 - The author claims that Latter-day Saints believe that "they were the only ones with a legitimate right to be stewards of the Lord's property"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Latter-day Saints believe that "they were the only ones with a legitimate right to be stewards of the Lord's property—i.e., all creation. Gentiles, on the other hand, because they had no claim to the earth, would have to give up to the Saints what they mistakenly viewed as their property."

Author's sources:

• Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 2:298-308.
• S[olomon] N. Carvalho, Incidents of Travel and Adventure in the Far West; with Col. Fremont's Last Expedition 142-143.
• History of the Church, 1:150. Volume 1 link; cf. DC 42꞉37.

FAIR's Response

Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe that they were the only ones with a "legitimate right to be stewards" of all property on the earth?

Nothing in the Doctrine and Covenants or Brigham Young's talk threatens the right of anyone to own property

One critics of Mormonism claims that Latter-day Saints believed that "they were the only ones with a legitimate right to be stewards of the Lord's property—i.e., all creation. Gentiles, on the other hand, because they had no claim to the earth, would have to give up to the Saints what they mistakenly viewed as their property." ^[7] The author cites the following sources in support of his claim:

• Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 2:298-308.
• S[olomon] N. Carvalho, Incidents of Travel and Adventure in the Far West; with Col. Fremont's Last Expedition 142-143. off-site
• History of the Church, 1:150. Volume 1 link; cf. D&C 42꞉37.

The author makes claims which his sources do not sustain. Nothing in the Doctrine and Covenants or Brigham Young's talk threatens the right of anyone to own property. Brigham explicitly states that entry into such a law is voluntary, of one's own free will. He makes the (uncontroversial, for any Christian) observation that everything belongs to God, and so anything a member sacrifices is not really 'his' to begin with.

During the LDS settlement of Utah, they received first claim on lands, and many settlers reportedly deeded their land to the Church—as was their right. This does not mean that they would, could, or did compel others to do likewise.

None of this means that everything which other people own should be owned by the Mormons. That is sheer fabrication.

The Doctrine and Covenants verse cited reads:

37 And it shall come to pass, that he that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out of the church, and shall not receive again that which he has consecrated unto the poor and the needy of my church, or in other words, unto me—

This does not mean that apostates or non-members have no right to property. This is, rather, a description of how the Church's united order economic system was to work. Property was given to the Church, but the member received some back and was given legal title to it. It remained his to do with as he wished, even if he left the Church—both legally and under the laws of the Church. As Milton V. Backman explained:

[Initially] instead of conveying deeds to members, Bishop Partridge...leased land to the Saints. Under the provision of the contracts [initially drawn up by Partridge]...if an individual left the Church, he had no legal claim to his inheritance.

On several occasions, Joseph Smith wrote to Church leaders in Missouri informing them that their application of the law of consecration and stewardship was not correct....

the Prophet informed Bishop Partridge, in a letter dated May 2, 1833, that although stewards had no claim over their initial consecration, their inheritances beclonged ^{[check spelling]} to them; it was their property. "Concerning inheritances," he explained, "you are bound by the law of the Lord to give a deed, securing to him who receives inheritances...." He further taught that if an individual transgressed and left the Church, the inheritance still belonged to him.^[8]

Brigham Young: "[this law] will be one of the last revelations which the people will receive into their hearts and understandings, of their own free will and choice"

Brigham Young's cited speech refers to the same section of the D&C; he even quotes verses 30-32]—this is the same material found in the author's History of the Church reference. After discussing other scriptures about consecration, Brigham observed:

[this law] will be one of the last revelations which the people will receive into their hearts and understandings, of their own free will and choice, and esteem it as a pleasure, a privilege, and a blessing unto them to observe and keep most holy....

[300] To whom do these elements [i.e., material blessings on the earth] belong now? To the same Being who owned them in the beginning. The earth is still His, and its fulness, and that includes each one of us, and also includes all that we seem to possess. It includes all the elements, in whatever shape, form, or condition, and wherever they are situated, whether in the native state, or in a state of organization for the comfort and benefit of man....

If we could perceive and fully understand that all the ability and knowledge we have, every good we possess, every bright idea, every pure affection, and every good vision of mind from our infancy to the present time, are [301] all the free gift of the Lord, and that we of ourselves have nothing original, we should be much better prepared and far more ready to act faithfully and wisely under all circumstances. Every good thing is in His hands, is subject to His power, belongs to Him, and is only handed over to us, for the time being, to see what use we will make of it....

It is then the design of the Lord that mankind should be placed in this dark, ignorant, and selfish state, that we should naturally cling to the earth; for, as it was said here last Sabbath, the earth is very good in and of itself, and has abided a celestial [303] law, consequently we should not despise it, nor desire to leave it, but rather desire and strive to obey the same law that the earth abides, and abide it as honorably as does the earth.

If we do abide this law thus faithfully, we are sure to get our resurrection and exaltation, for then we can see and understand things as they are. Then instead of concluding that the Lord has drawn us into difficulties, and compelled us to do that which is unpleasant to our feelings, and to suffer sacrifice upon sacrifice to no purpose, we shall understand that He has designed all this to prepare us to dwell in His presence, to possess His Spirit, which is right and intelligent, for nothing but purity and holiness can dwell where He is....

[304] What is our duty? It is our duty to improve upon every blessing the Lord gives to us. If He gives us land, improve it; if He gives us the privilege of building houses, improve it; if He gives us wives and children, try and teach them the ways of the Lord, and exalt them above the dark, degraded, and sunken state of mankind, &c.; if He gives us the [305] privilege of gathering together, let us sanctify ourselves. In His providence He has called the Latter-day Saints from the world, has gathered them from other nations, and given them a place upon the earth. Is this a blessing? Yes, one of the greatest the people can enjoy, to be free from the wickedness of the wicked, from the calamities and clamor of the world. By this blessing we can show to our Father in Heaven that we are faithful stewards; and more, it is a blessing to have the privilege of handing back to Him that which He has put in our possession, and not say it is ours, until He shall say it from the heavens. Then it is plain that what I seem to have I do not in reality own, and I will hand it back to the Lord when He calls for it; it belongs to Him and it is His all the time. I do not own it, I never did. He has called upon the people to consecrate their property, to see whether they could understand so simple a thing as this. When they bow down to worship the Lord, they acknowledge that the earth is His, and the cattle upon a thousand hills; and tell the Lord there is no sacrifice they are not willing to make for the sake of the religion of Jesus Christ....

[308] Observe the men who have come into this Church rich in property, and where can you find one who has said, "I brought fifty, forty, or twenty thousand dollars into this Church," but what they have either come begging to the Church at last, or apostatized? If you cling to the world, and say it is hard for you to do this or that, recollect that the love of the Father is not in you. Let me love the world as He loves it, to make it beautiful, and glorify the name of my Father in heaven. It does not matter whether I or anybody else owns it, if we only work to beautify it and make it glorious, it is all right. Let me do what I am called to do, and be contented with my lot, and not worry about this, that, or the other. I have spoken long enough. May God bless you. Amen.

Incidents of Travel and Adventure

The author's final source is a nineteenth century work which describes a visit to Salt Lake City by a Jewish author. That author writes:

I may say all the real estate in the valley is the property of the church, for proprietors have only an interest in property so long as they are members of the Mormon Church, and reside in the valley. The moment they leave or apostatize, they are obliged to abandon their property, and are precluded from selling it, or if they do give the bill of sale it is not valid—it is not tenable by the purchaser. This arrangement was proposed by the governor and council, at the conference which took place during my residence among them in 1854, and thousands of property holders subsequently deeded their houses and lands to the church, in perpetuity.

Under the operation of this law, nobody but Mormons can hold property in Great Salt Lake City.^[9]

Already, we have seen that the author has distorted the source. The real estate in the valley's is the Church's—the members do not "own" it. This is not to say that non-members cannot (and do not) own property elsewhere. But, since the property owners deeded their goods to the Church, the Church is the legal owner.

Carvalho continues approvingly:

There are numbers of citizens who are not Mormons, who rent properties; but there is no property for sale—a most politic course on the part of the Mormons—for in case of a railroad being established between the two oceans, Great Salt Lake City must be the half way stopping place, and the city will be kept purified from taverns and grog shops at every corner of the street. Another city will have to be built some distance from them, for they have determined to keep themselves distinct from the vices of civilization. During a residence of ten weeks in Great Salt Lake City, and my observations in all their various settlements, amongst a homogeneous population of over seventy-five thousand inhabitants, it is worthy of record, that I never heard any obscene or improper language; never saw a man drunk; never had my attention called to the exhibition of vice of any sort. There are no gambling houses, grog shops, or buildings of ill fame, in all their settlements. They preach morality in their churches and from their stands, and what is as strange as it is true, the people practise it, and religiously believe their salvation depends on fulfilling the behests of the religion they have adopted....

[Of new immigrants] each and all of them are comfortably provided with land and tenements. The first year they, of course, suffer privations, until they build their houses and reap their crops, yet all their necessities in the meantime are provided for by the church, and in a social point of view, they are much happier than they could ever hope to have been at their native homes. From being tenants at will of an imperious and exacting landlord, they suddenly become land holders, in their own right-free men, living on free soil, under a free and enlightened government.^[10]

Response to claim: 222, 554n88 (HB) - Did Brigham claim that God's kingdom had already come when he said: "[T]hat Kingdom is actually organized, and the inhabitants of earth do not [even] know it"?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did Brigham claim that God's kingdom had already come when he said: "[T]hat Kingdom is actually organized, and the inhabitants of earth do not [even] know it"?

Author's sources: Young, July 8, 1855, in Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, 310.

FAIR's Response

• Use of sources: Brigham and the Kingdom of God

Response to claim: 222, 554n89 (HB) - Brigham said: "We will roll on the Kingdom of our God...and establish the Kingdom of God to bear rule over all the earth"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Brigham said: "We will roll on the Kingdom of our God, gather out the seed of Abraham, build the cities and temples of Zion, and establish the Kingdom of God to bear rule over all the earth."

Author's sources: *Young, July 8, 1855, in Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, 317.

FAIR's Response

• Use of sources: Ruling Over the Earth

Response to claim: 223, 552n94 - Salvation depends upon obedience to Brigham Young

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Salvation depends upon obedience to Brigham Young.

• When Mary Ettie V. Smith recalled asked Brigham, "are you my Saviour?" she claims that Brigham said, "Most assuredly I am....You cannot enter the Celestial kingdom, except by my consent. Do you doubt it?"

  Author's sources: *Quoted in Nelson Winch Green, Mormonism: its rise, progress, and present condition. Embracing the narrative of Mrs. Mary Ettie V. Smith, 201.

FAIR's Response

• Ettie V. Smith

Response to claim: 223, 552n95 - Did Brigham Young believe that one day he "would himself become president of the United States, or dictate who should be president"?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did Brigham Young believe that one day he "would himself become president of the United States, or dictate who should be president"?

Author's sources: Hubert Howe Bancroft, History of Utah, 1540-1886, 505.

FAIR's Response

• Brigham as President of U.S.?

Response to claim: 223, 552n96 (PB) - John Taylor said "We used to have a difference between Church and State, but it is all one now..."

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

John Taylor said "We used to have a difference between Church and State, but it is all one now..."

Author's sources: John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 5:266.

FAIR's Response

• Church and state all one now

Response to claim: 223, 552n97 (PB) - "Mormon leaders ruled via a ruthlessly oppressive theocracy wherein they kept followers in line through violence and intimidation"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

 Author's quote: "Mormon leaders ruled via a ruthlessly oppressive theocracy wherein they kept followers in line through violence and intimidation."

Author's sources: Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 2:107.

FAIR's Response

•  Misrepresentation of source: Heber C. Kimball--violence and intimidation

Response to claim: 224, 552n98 (PB) - Were there "numerous murders" committed at the request of Brigham Young and other Church leaders?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

• Was the Mormon Reformation was one of the most violent periods in Latter-day Saint history?
• Were there "numerous murders" committed at the request of Brigham Young and other Church leaders?

  Author's sources: Ann Eliza Young, Wife No. 19, or the Story of A Life In Bondage, Being A Complete Expose of Mormonism, and Revealing the Sorrows, Sacrifices and Sufferings of Women in Polygamy, Chapter 18.

FAIR's Response

Notes

1. ↑ Diary of Hosea Stout (14 September 1845); available in Juanita Brooks, ed., On the Mormon Frontier: The Diary of Hosea Stout, 1844-1861 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1964).
2. ↑ Stout diary, 14 Sept 1845.
3. ↑ Stout diary, 14 Sept 1845.
4. ↑ D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 180, quoting Hosea Stout diary, 14 Sept. 1845, Brooks, On The Mormon Frontier 1:63.
5. ↑ Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, Endnote 62-65, page 552 (hardback); page 550 (paperback).
6. ↑ Kenneth W. Godfrey, “Causes of Mormon Non-Mormon Conflict in Hancock County, Illinois, 1839–1846” (PhD diss., Brigham Young University, 1967), ^{[citation needed]}.
7. ↑ Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, Endnote 84-87, page 553 (hardback); page 551 (paperback).
8. ↑ Milton V. Backman, Jr., The Heavens Resound: A History of the Latter-day Saints in Ohio, 1830–1838 (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1983), 74–75. ISBN 0877479739 GospeLink
9. ↑ Carvalho, chapter 22. off-site
10. ↑ Carvalho, chapter 22. off-site