Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 17

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Response to claims made in "Chapter 17: Joseph Smith"

Chapter 16: Lamanites, Seed of Cain, and Polygamy

A FAIR Analysis of: Mormonism 101 A work by author: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

Chapter 18: The Church and Its Leadership

∗       ∗       ∗

Response to claim: 251 - "We have noticed a more subdued reference to Mormonism's founder by tour guides and various displays. In the public area, emphasis on Smith seems to be diminishing"

The author(s) of Mormonism 101 make(s) the following claim:

Having made regular visits to Temple Square in Salt Lake City, Utah, we have noticed a more subdued reference to Mormonism's founder by tour guides and various displays. In the public area, emphasis on Smith seems to be diminishing.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

This claim is nonsense.

Question: Has the Church deemphasized references to Joseph Smith in recent years?

This is false--Joseph's role as the first prophet of the restoration continues to be a point of emphasis

This is false--Joseph's role as the first prophet of the restoration continues to be a point of emphasis. Joseph is, of course, out-ranked in important by God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

Several critics of the Church have come up with a surprising claim that the Church is publicly de-emphasizing Joseph Smith. This is a rather amazing statement to make. Surely anyone who visits Temple Square can test this statement and see that it is completely false. The authors obviously took their tour of Temple Square with Steven and Charles Crane whose similar claim, in the anti-Mormon work "Ashamed of Joseph," is soundly proven false in FARMS reviewer LeIsle Jacobson's onsite test.14 Jacobson's visit, as recounted in the endnote, found interactive and readily available video displays about Joseph and guides who easily spoke about him on the "basic beliefs" tour.

If there were still any doubt as to LDS public references to Joseph Smith, consider for example, that immediately adjacent to Temple Square is found a massive structure that was formerly the Hotel Utah. It was renovated a number of years ago to what today is known as the Joseph Smith Memorial Building and has a very large nine-foot marble statue of the prophet in the lobby; this cannot be missed. This is the very building where the missionaries on Temple Square send visitors to view current Church movies.

Another example comes in the form of an official Church letter of clarification issued to religion writers and editors regarding a Newsweek report on the Latter-day Saint faith. In an excerpt from the September 7, 2001 letter, the Church wrote:

Most importantly, our Church spokesmen emphasize our position that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Restoration of the ancient, biblical Church of Jesus Christ. The conviction among our Church members that this Restoration took place through the Prophet Joseph Smith in the early 1800s is so central to our thinking that no understanding of the Church is complete without it. A moment spent checking the Church's media Web site http://www.lds.org/media will affirm that this message of a distinctive, restored Church, is a consistent one.15

In this media library is found a significant article on Joseph Smith. In that article, "From Farm Boy to Prophet," it clearly states:

Latter-day Saints revere Joseph Smith as a prophet in the tradition of biblical prophets like Moses and Isaiah. Church members believe that his doctrinal teachings and instructions concerning the Church's organization resulted from divine revelation, not his own learning.

While critics lead the reader to believe otherwise, the Church is clear and direct in telling the esteem to which Joseph is held.

Response to claim: 252 - The authors claim that they "almost feel sympathetic toward the Mormon apologist who has to defend Smith's bad social behavior"

The author(s) of Mormonism 101 make(s) the following claim:

The authors condescendingly claim that they,

...almost feel sympathetic toward the Mormon apologist who has to defend Smith's bad social behavior...

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

Regardless of a token acknowledgment to the contrary, the authors leave the reader with the impression that not one person ever had anything good or positive to say about Joseph Smith. It is important to consider a few recorded opinions of Joseph in his day from those who knew and understood him, had the opportunity to interact with him, and ultimately finds itself in harmony with what he actually taught.

Response to claim: 253 - "Should people accept Smith as a prophet of God when his behavior was sometimes less than what we would expect from political leaders?"

The author(s) of Mormonism 101 make(s) the following claim:

The authors claim,

...should people accept Smith as a prophet of God when his behavior was sometimes less than what we would expect from political leaders? Should character be ignored when it comes to men who claim to be prophets of God?

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: This is pure propaganda.

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about Joseph Smith

Life and Character	Status in Latter-day Saint belief Joseph's trustworthiness Money digging Folk magic or the occult The Word of Wisdom Alleged narcissism
Youth	Joseph Smith's family as trustworthy and hard-working Education Use of seer stones as a youth The Hurlbut affidavits Joseph Smith's 1826 trial
Revelations and the Church	Witness of Jesus Christ First Vision Book of Mormon Joseph Smith's inspired revision of the Bible (JST) The restoration of the priesthood Personages who appeared to Joseph Smith Production of the Book of Abraham Kinderhook Plates
Prophetic Statements	The U.S. Civil War Rocky Mountain prophecy The White Horse prophecy Alleged false prophecies of Joseph Smith Joseph Smith and Old Testament practices
Society	Legal issues 1826 trial Creation of the Kirtland Safety Society Failure of the Kirtland Safety Society Campaign for President of the United States
Plural marriage (polygamy)	Plural marriage or polygamy Polygamy navigator Plural wives of Joseph Smith
Death	The Nauvoo Expositor Events surrounding the death of Joseph Smith Firing a gun at Carthage Jail Qualification as a martyr 1844 Succession to Joseph Smith

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 17

Video by BYU Speeches.

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

Was the young Joseph Smith a teller of "tall tales"?

The Prophet's mother's account of her son telling "amusing recitals" about the ancient inhabitants of the American continent occurred during the years that Joseph was being prepared to receive the plates

Lucy's 1853 autobiography, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for many Generations was considered inaccurate by Brigham Young and was ordered to be rewritten. The reasons for this had nothing to do with Lucy's account of her son Joseph's "amusing recitals." The 1853 autobiography and the 1845 manuscript upon which it was based still exist, and both confirm that the "amusing recitals" mentioned by Lucy were done during the period during which Joseph was being instructed by the angel as he waited to retrieve the gold plates. Lucy Mack Smith said the following in her 1853 autobiography:

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.

The quote from Lucy Mack Smith is used by critics of the Church to show how Joseph Smith told "yarns" about Native Americans "long before any golden plates had been found." The chronology found in Lucy Mack Smith's history, however, tells just the opposite story, and puts this quotation in its proper context. Lucy says that the angel Moroni told her son (during his first appearance) about the existence of the plates and informed him where they were buried (see Lavina F. Anderson, ed., Lucy's Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith's Family Memoir [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2001], 335-36). Lucy then states that Joseph (the evening after he had seen the Nephite record in their place of deposit) told his family all about "the plates" (ibid., 343).

Lucy Mack Smith: "From this time forth Joseph continued to receive instructions from time to time and every evening we gathered our children"

Lucy Mack Smith's account of her son telling "amusing recitals" about the ancient inhabitants of the American continent occurred during the years that Joseph was being prepared to receive the plates. The stories that he was telling related to information that he was receiving from the angel Moroni: These were not "tall tales" that he fabricated for his family's amusement.

From Lucy's 1845 manuscript, we read:

Now said he[,] Father and Mother the angel of the Lord says that we must be careful not to proclaim these things or to mention them abroad For we do not any of us know the wickedness of the world which is so sinful that when we get the plates they will want to kill us for the sake of the gold if they know we had <have> them...by sunset [we] were ready to be seated and give our atten undivided attention to Josephs recitals...From this time forth Joseph continued to receive instructions from time to time and every evening we gathered our children togather [together]...In the course of our evening conversations Joseph would give us some of the most ammusing [amusing] recitals which could be immagined [imagined]. he would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent their dress their man[n]er of traveling the animals which they rode The cities that were built by them the structure of their buildings with every particular of their mode of warfare their religious worship as particularly as though he had spent his life with them...The angel informed him at one time that he might make an effort to obtain the plates <on> the <22nd of the> ensueing september....

Clearly, Joseph Smith told his stories after he learned about, and saw, the golden plates. Indeed, it is known that Moroni showed Joseph visions and gave him information regarding the people whose stories were found on the Nephite record (see Times and Seasons, vol. 3, no. 9, 1 March 1842, 707-708), so the young man undoubtedly had quite a few stories to tell. Lucy Mack Smith simply said in her autobiography that her son told the family about information connected with the angel and the Book of Mormon plates. Lucy told the same information to Wandle Mace about seven years prior to producing her 1845 autobiography and clarified that this information was connected with the Book of Mormon "Nephites" and was shown to her son by vision.

In Joseph Smith's own official history he confirmed that he learned this information through the power of visions and Oliver Cowdery made note of the same thing. Thus, the origin of the stories mentioned by Joseph's mother in her autobiography was a heavenly one—she was not even remotely implying that her son was a teller of tall tales.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 64 ( Index of claims ) Sally Denton, American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, (Secker & Warburg, 2003), 7. Cephas Ministry, "A Mormon General Authority's Doubts About the Authenticity of the Book of Mormon" Richard N. and Joan K. Ostling, Mormon America: The Power and the Promise, (New York:HarperCollins Publishers, 2000), 23. ( Index of claims ) George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "...but we called it celestial marriage" (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), 22. ( Index of claims , (Detailed book review)) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?, 5th edition, (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 81. Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 125.( Index of claims ) Search for the Truth DVD

Was Joseph Smith, Jr. known as a "disreputable person?"

Joseph was only seen as lacking character in the opinion of those that misunderstood him and opposed his efforts in restoring the Church

In many—if not most—critical treatments of the Church, Joseph is made out to be "one of the basest men that ever lived." A Boston Bee reporter wrote after interviewing Joseph:

I could not help noticing that he dressed, talked and acted like other men, and in every respect appeared exactly the opposite of what I had conjured up in my imagination a prophet [to be].

Clearly, Joseph is not what the critics imagine a prophet to be either. Was Joseph perfect? No; he never said he was. What he did say of himself was, "Although I do wrong, I do not the wrongs that I am charged with doing; the wrong that I do is through the frailty of human nature, like other men. No man lives without fault."

Joseph was only seen as lacking character in the opinion of those that misunderstood him and opposed his efforts in restoring the Church. The recorded details and testimonies from firsthand accounts as to Joseph's good character cannot be ignored and certainly must be looked at by anyone serious in their study of Mormonism. The critics often avoid portraying the simple man who recognized the saving grace of Christ for his errors and sought to further the cause of righteousness.

Sectarian critics in particular ought to be careful, since the standard they apply to Joseph Smith might easily disqualify various biblical prophets. Paul for example, would not have been called to be an Apostle after his participation in the persecution of Christians and role in the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 8:1-3).

Ultimately, however, attacks, on Joseph's character are classic ad hominem—the man is attacked instead of the message.

Do Joseph Smith's personality and temperament indicate that he was not a true prophet of God?

Although we cannot fully detach the man from the message, we should remember that Joseph Smith was a man as well as a prophet

As a man, Joseph was subject to the same passions and opinions as other men, but as a prophet, he restored the truths, ordinances, and authority necessary to exalt mankind.

At its base, this attack is simply ad hominem abusive—an attack on the messenger, rather than his claims.

This criticism is not driven so much by facts as it is by expectations—people have their own preconceived notions of how a prophet should look, speak, and act. When a person who claims to be a prophet, often people dismiss him because he doesn't fit their idea of what a prophet should be, regardless of what he has accomplished.

Joseph Smith encountered and recognized this sort of prejudice, and he spoke about it:

I never told you I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught. Must I then be thrown away as a thing of nought?

Brigham Young explained it this way:

I recollect a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend of ours, before I was personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to rail against "Joe Smith," saying, "that he was a mean man, a liar, moneydigger, gambler, and a whore-master;" and he charged him with everything bad, that he could find language to utter. I said, hold on, Brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can. As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it.

At a 1894 gathering of Latter-day Saints who personally knew Joseph Smith, Joseph F. Smith (his nephew) arose and made the following remarks:

Now, some of us remember one thing, and some remember another thing, with relation to the Prophet [Joseph Smith]. I remember several instances, general incidents, myself, which might be considered inappropriate to mention here tonight. For it is sometimes the ludicrous things and drastic things which occur that impress themselves with greater vigor upon the mind; and we remember them more distinctly than we do other things of far greater importance and which are far more worthy to be recollected. No matter what we may recollect of the Prophet or what may be said to us here tonight with regard to our memeory [sic] of him, the one thing that I wish to call your attention to first and foremost of all other things is this, that whatever else the Prophet Joseph Smith may have done or may have been, we must not forget the fact that he was the man out of the millions of human beings that inhabited this earth at the time—the only man, that was called of God, by the voice of God Himself, to open up the dispensation of the Gospel to the world for the last time; and this is the great thing to bear in mind, that he was called of God to introduce the Gospel to the world, to restore the holy priesthood to the children of men, to organize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the world, and to restore all the ordinances of the Gospel, for the salvation not only of the living, but also of the dead, and he was called to this mission by God Himself. Now, if somebody tells us about Joseph being fond of wrestling, fond of running a foot race, fond of having a good scuffle with some lusty neighbor or friend; or if you hear somebody tell about the good, that is, the overflowing of the human nature that was in him, it need not detract one iota from the great and glorious principles which were revealed through him to the world.

Dr. John M. Bernhisel, related his impressions of Joseph Smith to Illinois Governor Ford in 1844. He wrote:

Having been a boarder in General Smith's family for more than nine months, and having therefore had abundant opportunities of contemplating his character and observing his conduct, I have concluded to give you a few of my "impressions" of him.

General Joseph Smith is naturally a man of strong mental powers, and is possessed of much energy and decision of character, great penetration, and a profound knowledge of human nature. He is a man of calm judgment, enlarged views, and is eminently distinguished by his love of justice. He is kind and obliging, generous and benevolent, sociable and cheerful, and is possessed of a mind of a contemplative and reactive character. He is honest, frank, fearless and independent, and as free from dissimulation as any man to be found.

But it is in the gentle charities of domestic life, as the tender and affectionate husband and parent, the warm and sympathizing friend, that the prominent traits of his character are revealed, and his heart is felt to be keenly alive to the kindest and softest emotions of which human nature is susceptible; and I feel assured that his family and friends formed one of the greatest consolations to him while the vials of wrath were poured upon his head, while his footsteps were pursued by malice and envy, and reproach and slander were strewn in his path, as well as during numerous and cruel persecutions, and severe and protracted sufferings in chains and loathsome prisons, for worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

He is a true lover of his country, and a bright and shining example of integrity and moral excellence in all the relations of life. As a religious teacher, as well as a man, he is greatly beloved by this people. It is almost superfluous to add that the numerous ridiculous and scandalous reports in circulation respecting him have not the least foundation in truth.

Attorney John S. Reed, a life-long non-Mormon, said in May 1844:

The first acquaintance I had with Gen. Smith was about the year 1823. He came into my neighborhood, being then about eighteen years of age, and resided there two years; during which time I became intimately acquainted with him. I do know that his character was irreproachable; that he was well known for truth and uprightness; that he moved in the first circles of the community, and he was often spoken of as a young man of intelligence and good morals, and possessing a mind susceptible of the highest intellectual attainments. I early discovered that his mind was constantly in search of truth, expressing an anxious desire to know the will of God concerning His children here below, often speaking of those things which professed Christians believe in. I have often observed to my best informed friends (those that were free from superstition and bigotry) that I thought Joseph was predestinated by his God from all eternity to be an instrument in the hands of the great Dispenser of all good, to do a great work; what it was I knew not.

Peter H. Burnett, a former Governor of California and attorney for Joseph wrote:

You could see at a glance that his education was very limited. He was an awkward and vehement speaker. In conversation he was slow, and used too many words to express his ideas, and would not generally go directly to a point. But, with all these drawbacks, he was much more than an ordinary man. He possessed the most indomitable perseverance, was a good judge of men, and deemed himself born to command, and he did command. His views were so strange and striking, and his manner was so earnest, and apparently so candid, that you could not but be interested. There was a kind, familiar look about him, that pleased you. He was very courteous in discussion, readily admitting what he did not intend to controvert, and would not oppose you abruptly, but had due deference to your feelings. He had the capacity for discussing a subject in different aspects, and for proposing many original views, even of ordinary matters. His illustrations were his own. He had great influence over others. As an evidence of this I will state that on Thursday, just before I left to return to Liberty [Missouri], I saw him out among the crowd, conversing freely with every one, and seeming to be perfectly at ease. In the short space of five days he had managed so to mollify his enemies that he could go unprotected among them without the slightest danger.

A New York Herald writer said he was "one of the most accomplished and powerful chiefs of the age." He then described him as follows:

Joseph Smith, the president of the church, prophet, seer, and revelator, is thirty-six years of age, six feet high in pumps, weighing two hundred and twelve pounds. He is a man of the highest order of talent and great independence of character--firm in his integrity--and devoted to his religion; . . as a public speaker he is bold, powerful, and convincing; . . as a leader, wise and prudent, yet fearless as a military commander; brave and determined as a citizen, worthy, affable, and kind; bland in his manners, and of noble bearing.

Opposite the positive views presented here and the conflicting views of Joseph which critics seek to take advantage of, there is reason to pause and consider the absoluteness of one opinion of Joseph over another. Speaking of Joseph's human side, the world's expectations of him, and reconciling the two realities, Marvin S. Hill concluded:

If a look at the human side of Joseph Smith seems at times somewhat unflattering, it comes from no desire to diminish him. It comes rather from the belief that at times in the Church we tend to expect too much of him, to ask him to be more than human in everything he did. This may lead to some disillusionment, if occasionally we find that he did not measure up to all our expectations. The early Saints usually avoided that kind of mistake. Brigham Young said of Joseph: 'Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults.' Brigham chose to stress the positive side.

Parley P. Pratt said that Joseph was "like other men, as the prophets and apostles of old, liable to errors and mistakes which were not inspired from heaven, but managed by...[his] own judgment."

These brethren knew Joseph as a man with human weaknesses, yet they believed in his divine calling and in his greatness. It seemed to them that what he had achieved as a prophet far outweighed his imperfections. In the long run their love of him and their faith in his calling were decisive in shaping their lives. Seeing Joseph in his various moods, they still called him a prophet of God... Those who would understand the Prophet must give consideration to his spiritual side as well as his human side. It was his strong commitment to things spiritual which made him so aware of his human failings, so desirous to overcome his weaknesses and to give his all to the work of the Lord.

Did Joseph Smith engage in "land speculation" in Nauvoo?

Those that made this accusation against Joseph Smith had their profits harmed by Joseph's policy of giving land to the poor

The Law's claimed that Joseph Smith used Church members' donations to engage in "land speculation" in Nauvoo. However, the Laws’ profits were harmed by Joseph’s policy of giving land to the poor, and the Laws also resented his ability to influence buyers. G. D. Smith’s account is a caricature of the facts. Few citations to the relevant literature are provided.

G. D. Smith claims that "the Law brothers came into a . . . dispute with [Joseph] over his conduct as trustee-in-trust for the church. In that capacity, [Joseph] had appropriated church members’ charitable donations for real estate speculation, buying low and reselling high to those immigrants who could afford to pay" (p. 423). In fact, Joseph had signed two promissory notes of $25,000 for Nauvoo, payable to Eastern land speculators.

Yet the dispossession suffered by the Saints in Missouri made repayment difficult since many could not afford to purchase land. "Joseph wanted to help," reports Richard Bushman, "but huge debts prevented him from simply giving away land. What could poor converts do?" Joseph’s preference was "to give land to the poor, especially to widows and orphans. To finance these free gifts, he wanted others to pay generously. The high council priced Nauvoo lots from $200 to $800, leaving room for negotiation. All these judgments required patience and wisdom and exposed Joseph to criticism for gouging and unfair treatment." In addition, "in June 1840, he asked the high council to appoint someone else to attend to ‘the temporalities of the Church.’ . . . [B]ut his appeal went unheeded, . . . leaving Joseph responsible for the debts and final disposition of land."

Thus the charge that Joseph was involved in "real estate speculation" is not true. G. D. Smith’s claim that Joseph was selling high "to those . . . who could afford to pay" is a bit of verbal legerdemain—it is true, while still managing to hide the fact that the Prophet was giving away land to those who could not pay. Joseph was already in debt for the land; land sold for higher prices did not benefit Joseph but did benefit those Saints too poor to afford land at all.

On what basis, then, were the Law brothers complaining? Their motives were not so pure as G. D. Smith suggests, just as Joseph’s actions were not so venal as G. D. Smith’s version implies. The Laws invested in lots in upper Nauvoo and on the outskirts while the church held title to the lower city. As Lyndon Cook has explained,

By 1843 the fundamental economic interests of the [Laws] and the Mormon leader were in definite conflict. Brisk competition caused the Prophet to insist that the Saints purchase building lots from only the Church. Although most recognized this as a sacrifice which would assist in liquidating Church debts, to William Law it sounded too much like totalitarianism.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "...but we called it celestial marriage" (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), 423. ( Index of claims , (Detailed book review))

Did Joseph Smith really tell Orrin Porter Rockwell 'it was right to steal'?

The only evidence for this statement is a fourth-hand claim made by a convicted fifteen-year-old thief attempting to justify himself

The only evidence for this statement is a fourth-hand claim made by a convicted fifteen-year-old thief attempting to justify himself. Joseph's diary recorded the comment, suggesting it cannot have threatened or worried him.

Quinn's use of the source is incorrect, and his lumping of a later journal entry with it creates a false impression

Historian D. Michael Quinn's material for this claim reads:

10 Mar [1843]. Fifteen-year-old Thomas Morgan says that Orrin Porter Rockwell told him "Joseph had taught that it was right to steal…which was the means of drawing Thomas into the practice of stealing." Smith's next remark about his boyhood friend: "conversed much about Porter, wishing the boy well."

Unfortunately, in this section of his book, Quinn provides no references, footnotes, or endnotes. One reviewer noted that "In a work where source notes are taken as seriously as they are in this book, it is unfortunate that they were not included in appendices 6 (Biographical Sketches) and 7 (Selected Chronology). The careful student needs to be able to weigh the evidence for the extensive and sometimes sensational information that is given here."

So it proves here.

Background: identifying the participants

The source for Quinn's source appears to be an entry made in Joseph Smith's journal. A transcript of the journal for the period in question reads:

[Entry for February 20, 1843] Last night Arthur Milikin had a quantity of books stolen and found them at 3 this P.M. in Hyrum Smith's Hayloft. Thomas Morgan and Robert Taylor (Morgan 15, Robert Taylor 13 years old next April) /both members of the Church/ were arrested on suspicion in the forenoon. On finding the books [they] immediately went to trial before the Mayor having had a brief examination about noon. Court adjourned till 10 [A.M.] tomorrow....

So, Thomas Morgan was a fifteen-year-old member of the Church brought before Joseph (in his role as a civil judge) for theft. The History of the Church notes that the next day:

Robert Taylor was again brought up for stealing, and Thomas Morgan for receiving the books, [referred to above] and each sentenced to six months imprisonment in Carthage jail.

Morgan and Taylor were found guilty, and sentenced to jail. The History of the Church later says that

I [Joseph] went with Marshal Henry G. Sherwood to procure some provisions for Thomas Morgan and Robert Taylor, who, on petition of the inhabitants of the city, I had directed should work out their punishment on the highways of Nauvoo.

So, far from approving theft, Joseph sentenced the young thieves to jail time, which was later converted into labor at the petition of others.

Evaluating the claim

We now come to the source (9 days later) to which Quinn likely alludes:

Friday, March 10th 1843 Clear and cold....As Thomas Morgan went out to speak with Mayor, said he had been told by several that Joseph had taught that it was right to steal viz. O. P. Rockwell, David B. Smith, and James Smith which was the means of drawing Thomas into the practice of stealing.

So, it turns out that Quinn's source is a hearsay statement from a fifteen-year-old member boy found guilty of stealing, and sentenced to jail by Joseph (later commuted to road work). The young man doubtless wanted to excuse himself in the prophet's eyes, and so makes the claim that the only reason he was 'draw[n]...into the practice of stealing' is what he has heard (unnamed) others say that Joseph said to Porter Rockwell. This statement is thus at least fourth hand:

Joseph -> Rockwell -> "others" -> Thomas Morgan.

Moreover, why would Joseph's personal journal record this incident if there were any truth to it? Why would Joseph allow a record to be made of advocating theft?

Next remark: wishing the boy well?

Quinn follows his claim about what Joseph told Porter by writing:

Smith's next remark about his boyhood friend: "conversed much about Porter, wishing the boy well."

This is disingenuous at best. The entry which reads "Conversed much about Porter, wishing the boy well," comes from a diary entry on March 14, 1843—four days after the encounter with Thomas Morgan! Quinn gives the impression that the very next thing that Joseph said, after hearing the tale from Morgan, were warm reminiscences regarding Porter Rockwell. Nothing could be further from the truth—this is simply the next remark about Porter in Joseph's journal, eight journal pages later. Small wonder that Joseph's thoughts turned to Rockwell, since on March 4, 1843, Rockwell was arrested for the attempted murder of former governor Boggs of Missouri.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 211, 549n28 (PB) ( Index of claims ) (quoting Quinn) D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 637.

Brigham Young (1855): "he was an honorable man and dealt justly, we know his true character. But let his enemies give his character, and they will make him out one of the basest men that ever lived."

The history of Joseph and Mary is given to us by their best friends, and precisely as we will give the history of the Prophet Joseph. We know him to have been a good man, we know that he performed his mission, we know that he was an honorable man and dealt justly, we know his true character. But let his enemies give his character, and they will make him out one of the basest men that ever lived. Let the enemies of Joseph and Mary give their characters to us, and you would be strongly tempted to believe as the Jews believe. Let the enemies of Jesus give his character to us, and, in the absence of the testimony of his friends, I do not know but that the present Christian world would all be Jews, so far as their belief that Jesus Christ was an impostor and one of the most degraded men that ever lived.

Joseph on himself

Joseph Smith:

...during this time, as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies; but as my accusers are, and have been forward to accuse me of being guilty of gross and outrageous violations of the peace and good order of the community, I take the occasion to remark that, though as I have said above, 'as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies,' I have not, neither can it be sustained, in truth, been guilty of wronging or injuring any man or society of men; and those imperfections to which I allude, and for which I have often had occasion to lament, were a light, and too often, vain mind, exhibiting a foolish and trifling conversation. This being all, and the worst, that my accusers can substantiate against my moral character, I wish to add that it is not without a deep feeling of regret that I am thus called upon in answer to my own conscience, to fulfil a duty I owe to myself, as well as to the cause of truth, in making this public confession of my former uncircumspect walk, and trifling conversation and more particularly, as I often acted in violation of those holy precepts which I knew came from God. But as the 'Articles and Covenants,' of this Church are plain upon this particular point, I do not deem it important to proceed further. I only add, that I do not, nor never have, pretended to be any other than a man 'subject to passion,' and liable, without the assisting grace of the Savior, to deviate from that perfect path in which all men are commanded to walk.

Did B.H. Roberts state that it was possible for Joseph Smith to have come up with the Book of Mormon on his own?

B.H. Roberts was a believer in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, and talked of young Joseph Smith as he sat up late detailing to the family the wonderful conversations he had with the angel

B.H. Roberts retained his belief that the Book of Mormon was of divine origin up until the end of his life. Yet, according to one critical website, B.H. Roberts "postulated that it was certainly possible for Joseph Smith to have come up with the Book of Mormon on his own." Roberts, however, believed that Joseph had conversations with the Angel Moroni.

B.H. Roberts, in his critical study of the Book of Mormon, pointed out how future critics might make use of this.

The face of it is first established by the testimony of the mother who bore him, Lucy Smith. Speaking of the days immediately following the revelation making known the existence of the Book of Mormon to her son...Lucy Smith in her History of the Prophet Joseph Smith, recounts how in the evening of that day, the young prophet sat up late detailing to the family the wonderful conversations he had with the angel;

Stephen H. Webb: "Evidence That Demands Our Amazement... Joseph Smith was a remarkable person"

Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb wrote:

By any measurement, Joseph Smith was a remarkable person. His combination of organizational acumen with spiritual originality and personal decorum and modesty is rare in the history of religion. He was so steadfast in his ability to inspire men and women through times of great hardship that none of those who knew him could claim to fully understand him. He knew more about theology and philosophy than it was reasonable for anyone in his position to know, as if he were dipping into the deep, collective unconsciousness of Christianity with a very long pen. He read the Bible in ways so novel that he can be considered a theological innocent—he expanded and revised the biblical narrative without questioning its authority—yet he brusquely overturned ancient and impregnable metaphysical assumptions with the aplomb of an assistant professor. For someone so charismatic, he was exceptionally humble, even ordinary, and he delegated authority with the wisdom of a man looking far into the future for the well-being of his followers. It would be tempting to compare him to Mohammed—who also combined pragmatic political skill and a genius for religious innovation—if he were not so deeply Christian. [Title is Webb's.]

B.H. Roberts:

[Joseph Smith] claimed for himself no special sanctity, no faultless life, no perfection of character, no inerrancy for every word spoken by him. And as he did not claim these things for himself, so can they not be claimed for him by others; for to claim perfection for him, or even unusual sanctity, would be to repudiate the revelations themselves which supply the evidence of his imperfections, whereof, in them, he is frequently reproved.

Joseph Smith was a man of like passions with other men; struggling with the same weaknesses; subjected to the same temptations; under the same moral law, and humiliated at times, like others, by occasionally, in word and conduct, falling below the high ideals presented in the perfect life and faultless character of the Man of Nazareth.

But though a man of like passions with other men, yet to Joseph Smith was given access to the mind of Deity, through the revelations of God to him; and likewise to him was given a divine authority to declare that mind of God to the world.

Joseph was open and direct about his weaknesses, saying to his accusers:

Being of very tender years, and persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends... I was left to all kinds of temptations; and mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by one who was called of God as I had been. But this will not seem very strange to any one who recollects my youth, and is acquainted with my native cheery temperament.

Joseph Smith:

...during this time, as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies; but as my accusers are, and have been forward to accuse me of being guilty of gross and outrageous violations of the peace and good order of the community, I take the occasion to remark that, though as I have said above, 'as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies,' I have not, neither can it be sustained, in truth, been guilty of wronging or injuring any man or society of men; and those imperfections to which I allude, and for which I have often had occasion to lament, were a light, and too often, vain mind, exhibiting a foolish and trifling conversation. This being all, and the worst, that my accusers can substantiate against my moral character, I wish to add that it is not without a deep feeling of regret that I am thus called upon in answer to my own conscience, to fulfil a duty I owe to myself, as well as to the cause of truth, in making this public confession of my former uncircumspect walk, and trifling conversation and more particularly, as I often acted in violation of those holy precepts which I knew came from God. But as the 'Articles and Covenants,' of this Church are plain upon this particular point, I do not deem it important to proceed further. I only add, that I do not, nor never have, pretended to be any other than a man 'subject to passion,' and liable, without the assisting grace of the Savior, to deviate from that perfect path in which all men are commanded to walk.

1819 trial

In 1819, a year prior to the First Vision, Joseph Smith was thirteen years old. His family sued a neighboring farmer over a dispute regarding some horses they had purchased. One author explained that Joseph's use as a witness indicates that the trial judge and jury found him both trustworthy and competent to give evidence:

Under New York law, being just thirteen, Joseph's testimony about the work he had performed was admissible only after the court found him competent. His testimony proved credible and the court record indicates that every item that he testified about was included in the damages awarded to the Smiths. Although Hurlbut [the farmer they were suing] appealed the case, no records have survived noting the final disposition of that case; perhaps it was settled out of court. The significance of this case is not limited to the fact that a New York judge found the young Joseph, just a year prior to his First Vision, to be competent and credible as a witness....

The trial was held on February 6, 1819. Twelve jurors were impaneled, all men and property owners. The Smiths called five witnesses, Hurlbut seven. Both Joseph Jr. and Hyrum were called to testify. This appears to be young Joseph's first direct interaction with the judicial process. He had turned thirteen years old a month and a half previously. New York law and local practice permitted the use of child testimony, subject to the court's discretion to determine the witness' competency. The test for competency required a determination that the witness was of 'sound mind and memory.' A New York 1803 summary of the law for justices of the peace notes that 'all persons of sound mind and memory, and who have arrived at years of discretion, except such as are legally interested, or have been rendered infamous, may be improved as witnesses.' This determination of competency rested within the discretion of the judge....

From the record it appears that Judge Spear found Joseph Jr. competent, and he indeed did testify during the trial. This is evident in a review of the List of Services that was part of the court file. Joseph Jr.'s testimony would have been required to admit those services he personally performed. His testimony was certainly combined with Hyrum's. Hyrum was born February 11, 1800, and was therefore nineteen years old at the time this case was tried.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

[Letter on Mormonism, 26 July 1841,] Christian Advocate and Journal (New York) 15, no. 52 (11 August 1841). off-site “Mormonism,” Supplement to the Connecticut Courant (Hartford, Connecticut) 5, no. 22 (15 December 1838): 175–76. off-site “Complaints of a Mormonite,” Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate (Utica, New York) ( 5 September 1835): 285. off-site “Mormonism—Religious Fanaticism—Church And State Party,” Morning Courier and New-York Enquirer (New York City, New York) 7, no. 1333 (31 August 1831). off-site “Mr. Alexa[n]der Campbell . . .,” Painesville Telegraph (Painesville, Ohio) (21 June 1831). off-site “Mormonism,” Susquehanna Register (Montrose, Pennsylvania) 9, no. 21 (1 May 1834). off-site Anon., "Great Discussion on Mormonism Between Dr. West and Elder Adams, at the Marlboro’ Chapel [Quoting from The Bostonian]," Times and Seasons 3 no. 20 (15 August 1842), 886; citing Mormonism Unvailed (Howe, 1834). off-site GospeLink “Mormonism Exposed and Refuted,” Universalist Union (New York) 3, no. 26 (5 May 1838): 205. off-site Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 27. ( Index of claims ) A.W.B., “Mormonites,” Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate (Utica, New York) 2, no. 15 (9 April 1831): 120. off-site Ezra Booth, “Mormonism—No. VII,” The Ohio Star (Portage County, Ohio) 2, no. 47 (24 November 1831). off-site John Warner Barber, The History and Antiquities of New England, New York, and New Jersey (Worcester: Dorr, Howland & Company, 1841)," 379-81. Henry Caswall, The Prophet of the Nineteenth Century, or, the Rise, Progress, and Present State of the Mormons, or Latter-Day Saints : To Which Is Appended an Analysis of the Book of Mormon (London: Printed for J. G. F. & J. Rivington, 1843), 27. off-site John A. Clark, “Gleanings by the way. No. VI,” Episcopal Recorder (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) (5 September 1840): 94. off-site John A. Clark, “Gleanings by the Way No. X,” Episcopal Recorder (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) (10 October 1840): 114-115. off-site Clericus, “Mormonism,” Christian Register (Boston) 15, no. 52 (24 December 1836): 1. Reprinted from Hampshire Gazette, circa December 1836. (Cites Mormonism Unvailed). off-site Samuel Haining, Mormonism Weighed in the Balances of the Sanctuary, and Found Wanting: The Substance of Four Lectures (Douglas: Robert Fargher, 1840), 20. off-site Eber D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed (Painesville, OH, 1834), 260–. (Affidavits examined) off-site James H. Hunt, Mormonism: Embracing the Origin, Rise and Progress of the Sect (St. Louis: Ustick and Davies, 1844), 57. off-site J.A.H., “Origin of Mormonism,” Wayne County Whig (Lyons) 3, no. 51 (14 September 1842). off-site Richard Livesey, An Exposure of Mormonism, being a statement of facts relating to the self-styled “Latter day Saints,” and the Origin of the Book of Mormon (Preston: J. Livesey, 1838), 2–3. off-site Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 253. ( Index of claims ) James M’Chesney, An Antidote To Mormonism, revised by G. J. Bennet (New York, NY: Burnett & Pollard, 1838), 22. off-site Full title Grandison Newell to Sidney Rigdon, Painesville Telegraph (Painesville, Ohio) (26 May 1837). off-site George Peck, “Mormonism and the Mormons,” Methodist Quarterly Review (January 1843): 111–27. off-site Philanthropist of Chester County, Mormonism Unmasked, Showed to be an Impious Imposture, and Mr. Bennett’s Reply Answered and Refuted (Philadelphia: T. K. & P. G. Collins, 1840), 9. off-site Response La Roy Sunderland, “Mormonism,” Zion’s Watchman (New York) 3, no. 9 (3 March 1838): 34, citing Howe. off-site Alphonoso Wetmore, Gazetteer of the State of Missouri (St. Louis: C. Keemle, 1837), 93-96. off-site

Past responses

E. Snow and Benjamin Winchester, "An Address to the Citizens of Salem (Mass.) And Vicinity," Times and Seasons 2 no. 24 (1 October 1841), 574-76. off-site GospeLink off-site

Notes

FAIR Answers—back to home page

<onlyinclude>

1. REDIRECTJoseph Smith's trustworthiness

Response to claim: 253 - The authors quote Richard Van Wagoner to describe Joseph's "lust for manly achievement" and his alleged "inclination toward extra-marital romantic liaisons."

The author(s) of Mormonism 101 make(s) the following claim:

The authors quote Richard Van Wagoner to describe Joseph's "lust for manly achievement" and his alleged "inclination toward extra-marital romantic liaisons."

Author's sources: *Richard Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess, 390-291, 293.

• Todd Comption, "A Trajectory of Plurality: An Overview of Joseph Smith's Thirty-three Plural Wives," Dialogue 29, no. 2 (Summer 1996), 22.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: In the tasteless pursuit of tabloid details, the authors have merely excerpted sensational passages from the works of Richard Van Wagoner and Todd Compton in an effort to deconstruct Joseph.

Richard Van Wagoner, whose writings the authors make much use of, wrote what certainly applies to the authors' approach to Joseph's marital matters:

Contrary to popular nineteenth-century notions about polygamy, the Mormon harem, dominated by lascivious males with hyperactive libidos, did not exist. The image of unlimited lust was largely the creation of Gentile travelers to Salt Lake City more interested in titillating audiences back home than in accurately portraying plural marriage.

The authors portray Joseph's plural marriages as lustful passion. This, however, is contrary to what polygamy was about.

Response to claim: 253-255 - The authors use the terms "secret marriages" "secret plural wives" "secretly married" "amorous advances" "errant yearnings" "extra-marital romantic liaisons" "still teenagers" "affairs" "sexual relations" to describe Joseph's martial arrangements

The author(s) of Mormonism 101 make(s) the following claim:

The authors use the terms "secret marriages" "secret plural wives" "secretly married" "amorous advances" "errant yearnings" "extra-marital romantic liaisons" "still teenagers" "affairs" "sexual relations" to describe Joseph's martial arrangements.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: The authors' emotionally laced words of suggested deception are tactically employed to control their readers' perceptions of Joseph's marital engagements. In this case, the authors superficially gloss over Joseph's plural marriages of which Emma had limited knowledge. The authors repeatedly indicate on the one hand that Joseph's plural marriages were a secret to Emma, yet on the other hand describe her feelings as "jealously battling" something she supposedly did not know about.The facts: While there is ample evidence that shows Emma consented to at least a half-dozen wives, the authors ignore any discussion on the implications and meaning of this or her overall mixed feelings on the subject.

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about Plural marriage

Doctrinal foundation of plural marriage	Purpose of plural marriage Plural marriage as a requirement for exaltation Plural marriage in early Christianity Plural marriage in the Book of Mormon Plural marriage and the Bible
Introduction of plural marriage	Initiation of the practice of plural marriage 1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership Divine manifestations to plural wives and families Plural marriage and the law
Questions about Joseph Smith and plural marriage	Initiation of the practice of plural marriage Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership Joseph Smith's marriages to young women Did Joseph Smith coerce women to marry him? Mormon women refusing offers of plural marriage Polyandry Joseph Smith and children through plural marriage Marrying other men's wives? Joseph Smith hiding plural marriages from his first wife, Emma Emma Smith's reaction to Joseph Smith's plural marriages Emma Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 132 Did Joseph have lustful motives for practicing polygamy? Did Joseph Smith send men on missions in order to steal their wives? Did Joseph Smith practice polygamy for the purpose of monetary gain?
John C. Bennett and Nauvoo polygamy	Bennett before Nauvoo Bennett and Prostitution Brothel at Nauvoo Rise and Fall of Bennett Sarah Pratt Nancy Rigdon Sidney Rigdon
Plural wives of Joseph Smith	Divine manifestations to plural wives and families Emma Smith Fanny Alger Louisa Beaman Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell Sarah Kingsley Howe Cleveland Agnes Moulton Coolbrith Elizabeth Davis Goldsmith Brackenbury Durfee Esther Dutcher Hannah S. Ells Olive Grey Frost Desdemona Catlin Wadsworth Fulmmer Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris Clarissa Reed Hancock Elvira Annie Cowles Holmes Sarah Maryetta Kingsley Howe Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde Vienna Jacques Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Almera Johnson Helen Mar Kimball Maria Lawrence Sarah Lawrence Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner Malissa Lott Sylvia Sessions Lyon Martha McBride Eliza Partridge Emily Partridge Rhoda Richards Ruth Vose Sayers Patty Bartlett Sessions Delcena Diadamia Johnson Sherman "Miss Smith" Mary Heron Snider Eliza R. Snow Lucy Walker Sarah Ann Whitney Nancy Maria Winchester Flora Ann Woodworth Fanny Young
Plural marriage in Utah	Difficulties with plural marriage Brigham Young's statements regarding plural marriage John Taylor's statements regarding polygamy Latter-day Saints and divorce in the nineteenth century Prevalence of plural marriage in Utah
End of plural marriage	The First Manifesto Official Declaration Number 1 Plural marriage practiced after the First Manifesto The Church of Jesus Christ and plural marriage today

How did Emma Hale Smith react to Joseph's practice of plural marriage?

Error creating thumbnail: /bin/bash: line 1: /usr/bin/convert: No such file or directory Error code: 127

Emma was aware of Joseph's plural marriage and sometimes gave permission, but did much to try and thwart it

Emma was aware of plural marriage; it is not clear at exactly what point she was made aware, partly due to there being relatively few early sources on the matter. Emma was generally opposed to the practice of plural marriage, and did much to try and thwart it. There were times, however, when Emma gave permission for Joseph's plural marriages, though she soon changed her mind. Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but her difficulties arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet:

Zina Huntington remembered a conversation between Elizabeth [Davis] and Emma [Smith] in which Elizabeth asked the prophet’s wife if she felt that Joseph was a prophet. Yes, Emma answered, but I wish to God I did not know it.

Emma did teach her children that Joseph had never taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and blamed its introduction on Brigham Young

Emma never denied Joseph's prophetic calling; she did, however, teach her children that Joseph had never taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and blamed its introduction on Brigham Young. Torn between two certitudes—her conviction of Joseph's prophetic calling, and her hatred of plural marriage—Emma had difficult choices to make for which we ought not to judge her.

But, the critics ought to let all of Emma speak for herself—she had a great trial, but also had great knowledge. That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.

Allen J. Stout: "from moments of passionate denunciation [Emma] would subside into tearful repentance and acknowledge that her violent opposition to that principle was instigated by the power of darkness"

Allen J. Stout, who served as a bodyguard for Joseph, recounted a conversation he overheard in the Mansion House between Joseph and his tormented wife. A summary of his account states that "from moments of passionate denunciation [Emma] would subside into tearful repentance and acknowledge that her violent opposition to that principle was instigated by the power of darkness; that Satan was doing his utmost to destroy her, etc. And solemnly came the Prophet's inspired warning: 'Yes, and he will accomplish your overthrow, if you do not heed my counsel.'"

Emma Smith: "The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that [principle;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it"

Emma's inner conflict was also dramatized in another report:

Maria Jane Johnston, who lived with Emma as a servant girl, recalled the Prophet's wife looking very downcast one day and telling her that the principle of plural marriage was right and came from Heavenly Father. "What I said I have got [to] repent of," lamented Emma. "The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that [principle;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it."

Emma Smith: "I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting"

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side...I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.

Was Emma Smith promised "annihilation" if she didn't accept plural marriage?

The revelation is not entirely clear on what this means

It is claimed that "In the revelation [D&C 132] Emma was promised annihilation if she failed to 'abide this commandment.'"

Here are the verses of Doctrine and Covenants 132 in question:

54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

One can see that the commandment given to Emma was to "to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else". This likely is a reference to adultery and/or being sealed to another man and not to accepting the plural marriage commandment. She is to remain faithful and supportive of her spouse. The punishment for committing adultery or being sealed to another man is that she will be "destroyed". The next verse is likely the one that refers to plural marriage though it's not entirely clear. It sets off a new clause with that "But". Plus, a different kind of consequence is promised for not accepting plural marriage. The consequence is that Joseph would "do all things for her; even as he hath said". A much more mild

Keep in mind that that same punishment is promised to both men and women that don't abide strictly by the new and everlasting covenant by either committing adultery or are sealed illegally. This from verse 26 of the revelation:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God (emphasis added).

This same promise is given in verses 41–42 and verse 63 of the revelation. But what exactly does it mean to "destroy in the flesh"?

Other uses of the word "destroy" in the revelation are used in relation to those that are not sealed by priesthood authority (Doctrine & Covenants 132:14), in relation to those that Emma elects for Joseph to be sealed to and who have pretended to moral purity yet weren't morally pure (Doctrine & Covenants 132:52), in relation to Joseph and what will happen to his property if he put it out of his hands (Doctrine and Covenants 132:57), and in relation to those women that are taught the principle of plural marriage but will not, like Sarah did, elect new wives for their husbands to be sealed to and have children in the covenant with (Doctrine & Covenants 132:64).

In these instances, "destroy" seems to mean either "create extreme psychological torment for" or "not give exaltation to" a particular person. The author is not aware, of the many people that we know that have committed adultery, of anyone who has been killed by God or struck down by him via lightning after committing adultery and being sealed to their first wife. Perhaps that should inform our understanding of "destroy" in this revelation and make it not mean "strike down with fire and utterly annihilate".

The revelation doesn't really settle the question for us. Joseph was promised this at the end of the revelation:

66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen.

So perhaps our Heavenly Father will reveal more about exactly what the revelation means at a future date. The textual clues that already exist as well as personal experience can certainly delimit the logical number of options for possible interpretation, but we would be wise to not shut out the possibility of further light and knowledge settling the question for us definitively. Since we don't know and likely can't know, it's not rational to fret anxiously over what this verse actually meant. What we can know is that following the commandment to practice plural marriage was a moral imperative for the Lord. The commandment to enter into eternal sealings as men and women is required for our becoming gods. Failure to follow the lord's "word which is his law" results in the consequence of either a deprivation of the fulness of mortal/earthly felicity possible and/or the deprivation of God's fulness and nature that he has promised to those that keep his commandments.

See also Brian Hales' discussion

Emma's path through plural marriage	Sometime in 1840 Joseph Smith first broached the topic of plural marriage privately to trusted friends. Most of the apostles were in England and thus were unavailable for an introduction to the practice.
Emma and Fanny Alger	Joseph's first foray into plural marriage was deeply painful for Emma, his first wife.
When did Emma learn?	It is impossible to definitively determine when Emma learned of Joseph’s plural marriages. However, many historical clues help to create a possible timeline.
Emma Accepts Plural Marriage and Participates in Four of Joseph’s Plural Sealings	The earliest documentable date for Emma’s awareness of time-and-eternity plural marriage is May of 1843, when she participated in four of her husband’s polygamous sealings.
Emma’s Resistance Prompts recording of D&C 132	Emma’s resistance to plural marriage prompted Hyrum to encourage Joseph to dictate a written revelation on the subject.
Joseph and Emma: Conflict and Agreement	Rather than generating Emma’s active support, the revelation [D&C 132] appears to have brought a smoldering crisis to flame. She and Joseph took serious counsel together with some sort of agreement being negotiated.

Was a pregnant Eliza R. Snow pushed down the stairs by a furious Emma, resulting in a miscarriage?

The historical and logistical problems with this story make it unlikely to be true

There is little evidence that the stairs incident happened as described.

Evidences that "Eliza had conceived Joseph’s child and miscarried," George D. Smith, the author of Nauvoo Polygamy "...but we called it celestial marriage" tells us, are "fragmented" and "questions cloud the story." Despite this, "the secondary sources are convincing in their own right" (p. 130). Here again, the author’s representation of the data and references to those who disagree leave much to be desired. He cites other authors while giving no indication that they disagree with his reading. For example, from an essay in BYU Studies he cites the Charles C. Rich version of a pregnant Eliza "heavy with child" being shoved down the stairs by a furious Emma. Nowhere does he tell the reader that these authors concluded that the story given the present evidence was untenable:

But where are we? Faced with a folk legend, with genuine documents that tell no tales, and dubious ones that contradict themselves and the contemporary accounts, perhaps it is best for us to respond as we must to many paradoxes of our history: consider thoughtfully and then place all the evidence carefully on the shelf, awaiting further documentation, or the Millennium, whichever should come first.

The statement that Eliza carried Joseph’s unborn child and lost it due to an attack by Emma is brought into question by Eliza’s own journal

Newell and Avery’s biography of Emma places the story into doubt:

The statement that Eliza carried Joseph’s unborn child and lost it [due to an attack by Emma] is brought into question by Eliza’s own journal. While her Victorian reticence probably would have precluded mention of her own pregnancy, if she were indeed carrying Joseph’s child, other evidence in the journal indicates that she may not have been pregnant. Eliza’s brother Lorenzo indicated that by the time she married Joseph, she was "beyond the condition of raising a family." Also if she was "heavy with child" as the Rich account states, she would not have been teaching school, for even legally married women usually went into seclusion when their pregnancies became obvious. Eliza continued to teach school for a month after her abrupt departure from the Smith household. Her own class attendance record shows that she did not miss a day during the months she taught the Smith children, which would not have been probable had she suffered a miscarriage.

RLDS perspective

The award for most humorously ironic use of a source in this section goes to the author's citation of Richard Price. The author argues that "most convincing of all is to think that these stories were circulating widely and Eliza never considered to clarify or refute them." He attributes this insight to Price (p. 134 n. 207). He believes that the "most convincing" aspect of the story is that Eliza never rebutted it. Uncorrected rumor or gossip is more convincing than the absence of diary or behavioral evidence for a pregnancy as outlined by Newel and Avery? If I do not rebut an unfounded rumor, does this mean I give it my consent? This seems a strange standard. Joseph and the members of the church tried to rebut the rumors spread by the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits, yet the author treats them as valuable insights. The Saints, it seems, are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

The author’s citation of Price might lead the reader to believe that Price agrees with Smith’s reading—that Eliza Snow never rebutted the story because it was true. But Price claims exactly the opposite.

In addition to the indignity of having his work cited for a view that is the reverse of his own, Price suffers further. An RLDS conservative, Price is committed to the stance that Joseph did not teach or practice plural marriage. Far from endorsing Smith’s view of the stairs incident, Price is adamant that the story is false. Though the author spends a page explaining why Joseph and Emma may have moved to the Mansion House earlier than thought (as the stairs story requires), he ignores Price’s diagram and argument for the story’s impossibility based on the Mansion House’s layout. The author can hardly have been unaware of it since the same Web page contains the argument to which he makes reference. FairMormon does not agree with Price on all points—his dogged insistence that Joseph did not practice plural marriage cannot be sustained by the evidence, which often leads him to make unwarranted leaps—but the author ought to at least engage Price’s critique and fairly represent his views.

If the story of Emma pushing Eliza Snow down the stairs is true, why did Eliza not make use of it?

Eliza went to considerable lengths to defend plural marriage and to insist that Joseph Smith had practiced it, so why did she never offer her pregnancy and miscarriage as evidence?

If the stairs story is true, why did Eliza not make use of it? The argument from silence cuts both ways: Eliza went to considerable lengths to defend plural marriage and to insist that Joseph Smith had practiced it. Why did she never offer her pregnancy and miscarriage as evidence? Eliza was not afraid to criticize Emma Smith for what she regarded as the latter’s dishonesty. Following Emma’s death and her sons’ publication of her last denial of plural marriage, Eliza wrote:

I once dearly loved ‘Sister Emma,’ and now, for me to believe that she, a once honoured woman, should have sunk so low, even in her own estimation, as to deny what she knew to be true, seems a palpable absurdity. If . . . [this] was really her testimony she died with a libel on her lips—a libel against her husband—against his wives—against the truth, and a libel against God; and in publishing that libel, her son has fastened a stigma on the character of his mother, that can never be erased. . . . So far as Sister Emma personally is concerned, I would gladly have been silent and let her memory rest in peace, had not her misguided son, through a sinister policy, branded her name with gross wickedness.

Emma was safely dead; Eliza had no need to spare her feelings. Why not offer her alleged miscarriage or Emma’s angry assault as evidence if it were true? This scenario seems at least as plausible as the author’s weak claim that silence equals agreement. Yet more than a hundred pages later, the author asks us to "assume . . . that LeRoi Snow’s account was accurate" before asking leading rhetorical questions. Yet again, no links to the other side of the story are provided (p. 236).

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "...but we called it celestial marriage" (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), . ( Index of claims , (Detailed book review))

Under what circumstances was Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 committed to writing?

Hyrum Smith asked Joseph to commit the doctrine to writing, because he believed that he could thereby persuade Emma of its truth

Hyrum Smith asked Joseph to commit the doctrine to writing, because he believed that he could thereby persuade Emma of its truth. Joseph did as Hyrum asked, but warned his brother that even this would not help persuade his wife.

See also Brian Hales' discussion

Emma’s Resistance Prompts a New Revelation

D&C 132 was committed to paper because of Emma's resistance, and Hyrum's desire to persuade her. The revelation is now section 132 in the Doctrine and Covenants. The original document penned by Clayton was destroyed either by Emma or by Joseph at Emma’s bidding.

Since first wives were generally to grant permission for sealings to subsequent wives, did Joseph's later sealing to Emma mean that Emma no longer held the role of "first wife"?

If the wife of the person who holds the keys to plural marriage rejects plural marriage, her husband is to follow the commands of God to him without her permission

Joseph's revelation in D&C 132 explicitly states that if the wife of the person who holds the keys to plural marriage rejects plural marriage, her husband is to follow the commands of God to him without her permission.

See also Brian Hales' discussion

Emma's path through plural marriage	Sometime in 1840 Joseph Smith first broached the topic of plural marriage privately to trusted friends. Most of the apostles were in England and thus were unavailable for an introduction to the practice.
Emma and Fanny Alger	Joseph's first foray into plural marriage was deeply painful for Emma, his first wife.
When did Emma learn?	It is impossible to definitively determine when Emma learned of Joseph’s plural marriages. However, many historical clues help to create a possible timeline.
Emma Accepts Plural Marriage and Participates in Four of Joseph’s Plural Sealings	The earliest documentable date for Emma’s awareness of time-and-eternity plural marriage is May of 1843, when she participated in four of her husband’s polygamous sealings.
Emma’s Resistance Prompts recording of D&C 132	Emma’s resistance to plural marriage prompted Hyrum to encourage Joseph to dictate a written revelation on the subject.
Joseph and Emma: Conflict and Agreement	Rather than generating Emma’s active support, the revelation [D&C 132] appears to have brought a smoldering crisis to flame. She and Joseph took serious counsel together with some sort of agreement being negotiated.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Jerald and Sandra Tanner, "Sacred Marriage or Secret Affair? Joseph Smith and the Beginning of Mormon Polygamy," Salt Lake City Messenger, No. 112, May 2009.

Did Joseph Smith offer to trade Jane Law for Emma Smith in a wife swap with William Law?

This claim rests on a single, unreliable hostile source. Other hostile sources (including William Law) deny the tale

This question arises because of a somewhat opaque verse in the Doctrine and Covenants section on plural marriage. (The revelation was written down at Hyrum Smith's request, who believed that he could persuade Emma Smith of the doctrine's provenance from God.) The verses in question read:

51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice....54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. (D&C 132꞉51,54.

No one is certain as to what this refers. William Clayton, Joseph's scribe and secretary, wrote in his contemporaneous journal:

This A.M. President Joseph took me and conversed considerable concerning some delicate matters. Said [Emma] wanted to lay a snare for me. He told me last night of this and said he had felt troubled. He said [Emma] had treated him coldly and badly since I came…and he knew she was disposed to be revenged on him for some things. She thought that if he would indulge himself she would too.

Some have seen this as Emma claiming she would practice plural marriage (a strange idea, given how she felt about it), and these readers have then extended the reading to include a belief that she was threatening to marry William Law. Others have seen these verses (perhaps more plausibly) as Emma simply threatening divorce if Joseph didn't cease plural marriage. In this reading, Joseph would have agreed to a divorce--both were probably speaking somewhat in the heat of the moment—and the Lord in D&C 132 makes it clear that he does not endorse Joseph's offer of (or agreement to) a divorce.

The idea of Joseph offering William Law to Emma springs out of an anti-Mormon work. As D. Carmon Hardy noted:

Belief that the prophet contemplated a 'spiritual swap' of wives with William Law, based on Joseph Jackson's statement in his exaggerated Narrative, 20–21, should be viewed with caution. The best review of the matter remains Newell and Avery, Mormon Enigma, 176–77.

It becomes clear how shaky the evidence is when one drills down to the ultimate source of the idea. The source of this charge seems to be a book by Joseph H. Jackson. Jackson claimed to have insinuated himself into Joseph's counsels, and claimed Joseph had told him that he was going to attempt to "get Mrs. William Law for a spiritual wife…for the purpose of affecting his object [Joseph] got up a revelation that Law was to be sealed up to Emma, and that Law's wife was to be his; in other words there was to be a spiritual swop [sic]…[Joseph] had never before suffered his passion for any woman to carry him so far as to be willing to sacrifice Emma for its gratification."

However, Jackson appears on no Church membership records, and Joseph's early opinion was that he was "rotten hearted." Note that D&C 132 was given almost a year prior to Jackson's claimed revelation.

Testimony that contradicts the claim

William Law himself denied that Joseph ever attempted such a swap:

Joseph Smith never proposed anything of the kind to me or to my wife; both he and Emma knew our sentiments in relation to spiritual wives and polygamy; knew that we were immoveably opposed to polygamy in any and every form…[but Law did believe] that Joseph offered to furnish his wife, Emma, with a substitute, for him, by way of compensation for his neglect of her, on condition that she would stop her opposition to polygamy and permit him to enjoy his young wives in peace and keep some of them in the house.

Law thus saw the verse as referring to divorce, not a swap.

It is also interesting that another anti-Mormon writer (and former wife of Brigham Young) Ann Eliza Webb Young wrote:

One particular passage [of D&C 132] is said to refer to a matrimonial scene in which a threat was held out that the life of the Elect Lady should be terminated [84] by poison. She is here commanded to "stay herself, and partake not" of that which Joseph had offered her. It is, however, only right to add that the Mormon exponents of the Revelation say that this passage refers to an offer which Joseph had made to sacrifice his own personal feelings, and to accede to a divorce between Emma and himself. In these few lines more is disclosed of the Prophet's domestic life and difficulties than he probably was aware of. I give these paragraphs in full, that the reader may judge for himself. [She then cites D&C 132:51–60]

Ann Eliza wasn't old enough to have direct personal knowledge about plural marriage in Nauvoo, but her parents (who also later apostatized) were there--so this may well reflect their insights. At the very least, she too would have had reason to condemn Joseph Smith if Joseph had offered a wife swap, but she didn't. In fact, she understood the mysterious verses quite differently.

Most historians have thus not given much weight to this idea. It is probably best seen as anti-Mormon folk history. It still crops up now and again among those who either don't know the data well, or who are working with a lascivious picture of Joseph and so this "fits" how they think he behaved.

William Law and complicating the picture

The story is complicated by the issue of William Law (who was a counselor to Joseph in the First Presidency before he apostatized and helped write the Nauvoo Expositor) and his wife, Jane. There are various versions of that story, and so they get tangled up in this issue.

It is not clear whether or not William and Jane were ever sealed. Alexander Neibaur, a close friend of the Prophet, said that "Mr Wm Law--wisht to be Married to his Wife for Eternity Mr [Joseph] Smith said would Inquire of the Lord, Answered no because Law was a Adultereous person. Mrs Law wandet to know why she could not be Married to Mr Law Mr S said would not wound her feeling by telling her, some days after Mr Smith going toward his Office Mrs Law stood in the door beckoned to him more the once did not Know wheter she bekoned to him went across to Inquire yes please to walk in no one but herself in the house. she drawing her Arms around him if you wont seal me to my husband Seal myself unto you. he Said stand away & pushing her Gently aside giving her a denial & going out. when Mr Law came home he Inquired who had been in his Absence. she said no one but Br Joseph, he then demanded what had[pass[ed] Mrs L then told Joseph wandet her to be Married to him." (Journal of Alexander Neibaur, 24 May 1844, Church Archives. See also Hyrum Smith's statement in Nauvoo Neighbor, Extra, 17 June 1844, regarding Law's adulterous conduct.) Yet at Law's trial of excommunication, Jack John Scott, a Canadian convert, testified that to ameliorate conditions between William and Joseph (possibly because of the accusations that the Prophet had made advances to Jane Law) Joseph Smith had sealed William Law and his wife (Minutes of meeting, 18 April 1844, Brigham Young Papers, Church Archives).

This could be Joseph just spin-doctoring, but his account told to Neibaur was done privately, and wasn't used in public to discredit Law or his wife. This, to me, adds to its plausibility. It didn't really benefit Joseph if he were to lie in private to a very few about Law, while Law was making such public trouble for Joseph. Here's Hyrum Smith's evidence (and many regarded Hyrum as impeccably honest):

Councilor Hyrum Smith continued—Jackson told him he (Jackson) meant to have his daughter, and threatened him if he made any resistance. Jackson related to him a dream, that Joseph and Hyrum were opposed to him, but that he would execute his purposes; that Jackson had laid a plan with four or five persons to kidnap his daughter, and threatened to shoot any one that should come near after he had got her in the skiff; that Jackson was engaged in trying to make bogus, which was his principal business. Referred to the revelation read to the High Council of the Church, which has caused so much talk, about multiplicity of wives; that said revelation was in answer to a question concerning things which transpired in former days. That when sick, William Law confessed to him that he had been guilty of adultery, and was not fit to live, and had sinned against his own soul, &c., and inquired who was Judge Emmons? When he came here he had scarce two shirts to his back; but he had been dandled by the authorities of the city, &c., and was now editor of the Nauvoo Expositor, and his right hand man, was Francis M. Higbee, who had confessed to him that he had had the——! [the blank at the end likely refers to a venereal disease contracted by Higbee from a prostitution ring run by John C. Bennett]

Law, in his turn, claimed "[Joseph][ha[s] lately endeavored to seduce my wife, and[ha[s] found her a virtuous woman".

The best reconstruction may be Cook's:

A possible explanation for this discrepancy is that Neibaur's account (cited above), though reasonably accurate, is simply incomplete. Obviously, Jane Law's frustration over not being permitted to be eternally sealed to her husband might have prompted her to request eternal marriage to the Mormon leader (say, in late 1843), and (as per Neibaur) she was rebuffed. Subsequently, possibly to gratify and assuage the Laws, Joseph might have finally agreed to seal the couple near Christmas 1843 (as per John Scott). Then later, just before or soon after the Laws' excommunication, Joseph Smith might have sought to have Jane Law sealed to him in an attempt to keep her from following her apostate husband (as per Law's diary and other published sources noted above). Bathsheba W. Smith, one of the anointed quorum who was conversant with all the ramifications of plural marriage in Nauvoo, believed that Jane Law may well have been sealed to the Prophet (Bathsheba W. Smith Deposition, Eighth Circuit Court, 1892 Temple Lot Case, carbon copy of original, Church Archives). However, if this were the case, it was short-lived because Jane, who was expecting her sixth child, did remain with her husband, William Law. In July 1867, John Hawley reported that Wilford Woodruff had said, "When Brigham Young got the records of the Church in his hands, after the death of Joseph Smith, he found by examination that . . . [William] Laws wife and [Francis] Higbys wife and[L[yman] Wights wife and [Robert D .] Fosters wife had all been Sealed to Joseph, as their Husbands could not Save them" (John Hawley, Autobiography, January 1885, p. 97, RLDS Library-Archives).

See also Brian Hales' discussion

William and Jane Law and the Prophet	William Law was Joseph's counselor, but eventually broke with the Prophet and helped publish the Nauvoo Expositor.
Plural Marriage and the Martyrdom	Did rumors of polygamy contribute to Joseph's martyrdom?
Did Joseph Smith Intend to Abandon Plural Marriage?	William Marks related that Joseph’s conversation denouncing plural marriage occurred “three weeks before his death” or around June 6. Perhaps Joseph had such a change of heart during the first week of June, but this seems unlikely and other parts of Marks’ recollection are implausible.

See also Brian Hales' discussion

Emma's path through plural marriage	Sometime in 1840 Joseph Smith first broached the topic of plural marriage privately to trusted friends. Most of the apostles were in England and thus were unavailable for an introduction to the practice.
Emma and Fanny Alger	Joseph's first foray into plural marriage was deeply painful for Emma, his first wife.
When did Emma learn?	It is impossible to definitively determine when Emma learned of Joseph’s plural marriages. However, many historical clues help to create a possible timeline.
Emma Accepts Plural Marriage and Participates in Four of Joseph’s Plural Sealings	The earliest documentable date for Emma’s awareness of time-and-eternity plural marriage is May of 1843, when she participated in four of her husband’s polygamous sealings.
Emma’s Resistance Prompts recording of D&C 132	Emma’s resistance to plural marriage prompted Hyrum to encourage Joseph to dictate a written revelation on the subject.
Joseph and Emma: Conflict and Agreement	Rather than generating Emma’s active support, the revelation [D&C 132] appears to have brought a smoldering crisis to flame. She and Joseph took serious counsel together with some sort of agreement being negotiated.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), Chapter 17. ( Index of claims ) MormonThink.com website (as of 28 April 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), Chapter 5.

Notes

Response to claim: 253 - The authors state that "fully one-third of Joseph's plural wives, eleven of them, were polyandrous"

The author(s) of Mormonism 101 make(s) the following claim:

The authors note,

One misconception concerning Joseph's polyandry is that it was a practice represented in only one or two unusual marriages; however, fully one-third of Joseph's plural wives, eleven of them, were polyandrous.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The implication of "polyandrous" is that the women involved had two husbands at the same time. In reality, Joseph was sealed to those women for eternity, and they continued to live with their earthly husbands, and only their earthly husbands. Joseph never cohabited with or had relations with those women. In regard to polyandry, Daynes wrote: "Perhaps nothing is less understood than Joseph Smith's sealings to women already married, because the evidence supports conflicting interpretations."

The authors base their shallow glimpse of this subject on what at times could be described as the historical guesswork of Compton, which carries its own subsequent set of problems. The authors merely repeat one sentence from Compton's book and fail to mention or consider any of Compton's long list of theories for reasons behind polyandry which might provide some understanding for the reader.

• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry

Response to claim: 254 "Some might argue that these relationships were strictly platonic. Compton disagrees"

The author(s) of Mormonism 101 make(s) the following claim:

The authors state,

Some might argue that these relationships were strictly platonic. Compton disagrees, "Though it is possible that Joseph had some marriages in which there were no sexual relations, there is no explicit or convincing evidence for such a marriage (except, perhaps, in the cases of the older wives). And in a significant number of Joseph's marriages, there is evidence for sexual relations."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: While the authors readily accept the insinuation that all of Joseph's relationships were sexual, they fail to consider or even recognize the speculative (and what at times has been described as the self-serving) nature of Compton's exploration of polyandrous marriages.The facts: Sources do not show nor is there any reliable evidence that the way Joseph practiced polyandry included sexual or familial relations.

• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages

Response to claim: 254 - "The daughter of Heber C. Kimball stated how Smith promised that if she would "take this step," it would insure the eternal salvation and exaltation of her father's household and kindred"

The author(s) of Mormonism 101 make(s) the following claim:

The authors claim,

In May 1843 the thirty-seven-year-old prophet of Mormonism convinced fifteen-year-old Helen Mar Kimball to be sealed as his plural wife. The daughter of Heber C. Kimball stated how Smith promised that if she would "take this step," it would insure the eternal salvation and exaltation of her father's household and kindred. Helen was led to believe that the relationship was more of a spiritual nature and claimed she would have never gone through with it had she known otherwise.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: At this point in the authors' book, their sources are intermingled between Todd Compton and Richard Van Wagoner. While both books cover this same paragraph, the authors chose Van Wagoner's paragraph over Compton's entire chapter on the subject.The facts: This is likely because Van Wagoner provides no hint that the source of Helen's later claim of "would have never gone through with it" comes from an anti-Mormon writer whom Compton describes as displaying "extremism," "is suspect," "not credible," "unreliable," and to be "regarded with caution."

• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Helen Mar Kimball

Response to claim: 255 - "Would Mormons living in today's society follow as their prophet a man who was known to be a money digger and advocate of folk magic?"

The author(s) of Mormonism 101 make(s) the following claim:

The authors state,

For instance, would Mormons living in today's society follow as their prophet a man who was known to be a money digger and advocate of folk magic? According to Quinn, Smith and his family were well versed in such things: Joseph Smith...had unquestionably participated in treasure seeking and seer stone divination and had apparently also used divining rods, talismans, and implements of ritual magic.

FAIR's Response

• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Occultism and magic and Joseph Smith/Money digging

Response to claim: 255 - "The fact that Smith owned a Jupiter talisman shows that his fascination with the occult was not just a childish fad"

Claim
The authors bring up magic again,

The fact that Smith owned a Jupiter talisman shows that his fascination with the occult was not just a childish fad. At the time of his death, Smith had on his person this talisman...

Response
 FAIR WIKI EDITORS: Check sources

• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Occultism and magic/Jupiter talisman

Response to claim: 256 - "Despite what may have been written about him, it is evident that Smith had an ego and expected to be followed without question"

The author(s) of Mormonism 101 make(s) the following claim:

The authors claim that "[t]here is no question that many Mormon historians have painted Smith as a man of high morals and impeccable integrity. Any reports to the contrary are often assumed to have been made by enemies of the church or disgruntled ex-Mormons. Despite what may have been written about him, it is evident that Smith had an ego and expected to be followed without question."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: Interestingly the authors seem to have no problem citing "LDS" and "Mormon" authorities to construct an entire chapter of "contraries." Is the reader to conclude that every single "LDS" or "Mormon" historian that they cite is an enemy or apostate?The facts: The authors state that despite what may have been written about Joseph, he remains an egotist that controlled his people. Do Mormon leaders control the faithful and expect to be followed without question? There are several examples that show just the opposite expectation. Brigham Young, quoting Joseph Smith, said:

The question was asked a great many times of Joseph Smith, by gentlemen who came to see him and his people, 'How is it that you can control your people so easily? It appears that they do nothing but what you say; how is it that you can govern them so easily?' Said he, 'I do not govern them at all. The Lord has revealed certain principles from the heavens by which we are to live in these latter days. The time is drawing near when the Lord is going to cut short his work in righteousness, and the principles which he has revealed I have taught to the people and they are trying to live according to them, and they control themselves.' Gentlemen, this is the great secret now in controlling this people. It is thought that I control them, but it is not so. It is as much as I can do to control myself and to keep myself straight and teach the people the principles by which they should live.

• For a detailed response, see: Authoritarianism and Church leaders and Authoritarianism and Church leaders/Quotes

Response to claim: 257 - The authors claim Joseph was boastful

The author(s) of Mormonism 101 make(s) the following claim:

The authors claim Joseph was boastful when he said,

I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I.

FAIR's Response

For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Narcissism/Did Joseph Smith 'boast' of keeping the Church intact

Response to claim: 258 - The authors use a quote from Brigham Young and from Joseph Field Smith to "prove" that Joseph is the gateway to the Celestial Kingdom

Claim
The authors use a quote from Brigham Young and from Joseph Field Smith to "prove" that Joseph is the gateway to the Celestial Kingdom,

Young stated that entrance into the celestial kingdom was conditional on Smith's consent. "No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are-I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation-the keys to rule in the spirit world."

President Joseph Fielding Smith affirmed this, saying that nobody could reject this "testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Response
 FAIR WIKI EDITORS: Check sources

• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Status in LDS belief

Response to claim: 258-259 - The authors claim that Latter-day Saints believe that Joseph will save them

The author(s) of Mormonism 101 make(s) the following claim:

The authors claim that Latter-day Saints believe that Joseph will save them,

Christians throughout the centuries have pointed to Jesus Christ as the only way to eternal life, Mormon leaders have taught that Joseph Smith will apparently be a deciding factor as well"... "The Bible clearly states that every person-both believer and non-believer-will be judged by Jesus, not Joseph! There is no hint that somebody like Smith would assist in the judgment.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: Latter-day Saints do not believe that Joseph Smith will "save" them.The facts: There is little doubt that through reading the Bible and rest of the Standard Works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that we all will stand before the great judgment bar of God.

• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Status in LDS belief

261

Claim
The authors claim evidence of failed prophecies,

[Smith's] followers were forced to leave Missouri...It should come as no surprise that among the many excuses Mormons have raised for the failure of Smith's Missouri predictions, few admit it was due to his lack of prophetical insight.

Response

• It is important to understand the context in which "historians" are quoted for a proper understanding of their material. Interestingly, the authors freely called upon dead "LDS historian Andrew Jenson" for an earlier quote in their chapter that served to question the truthfulness of Joseph as a prophet. That quote had nothing to do with the context of Jenson's talk. His entire lecture was on proving that Joseph was in fact a prophet of God by describing numerous instances of fulfilled prophecies and other such witnesses to the truthfulness of his call. McKeever and Johnson ignore the fact that Jenson, in his 110-year-old Friday-evening lecture to the Student's Society, illustrated how Smith's predictions were proof of his "prophetical insight."
• Ironically, Jenson uses Missouri as one proof of Joseph's "prophetical insight." Jenson states:

In 1831 the Saints were commanded to gather to Jackson County, Mo., which was designated as a land of inheritance for the Saints in the last days, and also as the identical spot where they should build that great city, the New Jerusalem, about which the ancient Prophets and Saints had sung, prayed and rejoiced so much. Joseph Smith had just arrived in that goodly land, together with a number of his brethren, when a revelation, containing some very strange sayings was given on the 1st of August, 1831.

• Jenson then relates D&C 58꞉1-5, wherein the Lord talks of the land they had just arrived in and speaks of "much tribulation" and blessings to those that remain faithful after that which is to follow. Jenson points out that if Joseph was a fraud attempting to make financial gain or seeking the vain glory and honor of men, then it would be pretty absurd to be predicting trouble when there was none immediately apparent. In less than three years after this revelation, the Saints were driven out of Jackson County and three years after that they were forced from Clay County, Missouri, then two more years later the Governor issued an extermination order driving them from the State of Missouri. If McKeever and Johnson do not think this means "much tribulation," then what, as Jenson states, does it mean?
• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies

The "Martyrdom" of the Prophet

262

Claim

• The authors now attempt to cast doubt on Joseph's status as a martyr for his beliefs,

Knowing full well that he would be in great danger by placing himself in the hands of his enemies, Smith attempted to flee into Iowa and ultimately to the Rockies. While waiting for horses, his wife Emma sent him a message stating that the Latter-day Saints were accusing Smith of cowardice and urged him to return. Smith did so.

Response

• Was Joseph a coward? Joseph and Hyrum returned to Carthage for reasons that the authors omit from their narration. Joseph was, and always had been, willing to die for his faith, his God, and his people. Danel Bachman, illustrating this willingness, cited an 1838 incident when Joseph and Hyrum were in the hands of their enemies and were sentenced to be executed. Did he resist? No! Joseph, speaking of his feelings at the time said:

As far as I was concerned, I felt perfectly calm, and resigned to the will of my heavenly Father.... And notwithstanding that every avenue of escape seemed to be entirely closed, and death stared me in the face, and that my destruction was determined upon, as far as man was concerned; yet, from my first entrance into the camp, I felt an assurance, that I with my brethren and our families should be delivered. Yes, that still small voice, which has so often whispered consolation to my soul, in the depth of sorrow and distress, bade me be of good cheer, and promised deliverance.

• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Martyrdom

Claim

• The authors which to emphasize that Joseph drank wine at Carthage,

After dinner, Smith and several church officials ordered some wine to be brought to the jail.

Response

• The fact that the History of the Church mentions the wine so matter-of-factly should warn us that circumstances were different, and neither current or later Church leaders or members saw this as something that would make Joseph look bad.
• The authors lead the reader to think that Joseph and his associates sat around drinking wine all night. Joseph's final night consisted of testimony, study, and prophecy. The record reads:

During the evening the Patriarch Hyrum Smith read and commented upon extracts from the Book of Mormon, on the imprisonments and deliverance of the servants of God for the Gospel's sake. Joseph bore a powerful testimony to the guards of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, restoration of the Gospel, the administration of angels, and that the kingdom of God was again established upon the earth, for the sake of which he was then incarcerated in that prison, and not because he had violated any law of God or man.

• Later that night we read:

Soon after Dr. Richards retired to the bed which Joseph had left, and when all were apparently fast asleep, Joseph whispered to Dan Jones, "are you afraid to die?" Dan said, "Has that time come, think you?" "Engaged in such a cause I do not think that death would have many terrors." Joseph replied, "You will yet see Wales, and fulfill the mission appointed you before you die."

• In fulfillment of this prophecy, Dan Jones fulfilled two missions to Wales and was an instrument in bringing nearly one thousand people into the church.
• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith and others drank wine prior to the martyrdom

Claim

• The authors claim that Joseph's use of a gun disqualifies him as a martyr.

Smith was visited by Cyrus H. Wheelock who, as he was about to leave, "drew a small pistol, a six-shooter from his pocket, remarking at the same time, 'Would any of you like to have this?"' The narrative states that Smith "immediately replied, 'Yes, give it to me."' He then proceeded to take the pistol and put it into his pants pocket.

Response

• There is no question Joseph intended to defend himself and his friends, as was his right. As to the details that shed light on his acquisition of the weapon, another narrative from the History of the Church paints a different and clearer picture than the one the authors present. The account reads:

The morning being a little rainy, [Wheelock] favored his wearing an overcoat, in the side pocket of which he was enabled to carry a six shooter, and he passed the guard unmolested. During his visit in the prison he slipped the revolver into Joseph's pocket. Joseph examined it, and asked Wheelock if he had not better retain it for his own protection... Joseph then handed the single barrel pistol which had been given him by John S. Fullmer, to his brother Hyrum, and said, 'You may have use for this.' Brother Hyrum observed, 'I hate to use such things or to see them used.' 'So do I,' said Joseph, 'but we may have to, to defend ourselves;' upon this Hyrum took the pistol.

• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Martyrdom/Joseph fired a gun and Joseph Smith/Martyrdom/Hiding Joseph's gun

263

Claim

• The authors repeat a popular rumor that Joseph killed two of his attackers with his gun,

John Taylor stated that before Smith was shot, he used his smuggled gun to shoot three of his attackers, killing two of them.

Author's source(s)

Response

• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Martyrdom/Did Joseph actually kill two men

Claim

• The authors attempt a comparison between the death of Joseph Smith and the death of Jesus Christ,

The differences between Jesus and Joseph Smith are obvious. On the one hand, Jesus quietly and humbly went like a lamb to the slaughter. He went peacefully and without resistance. When Peter attempted to defend his Lord from the mob by drawing his sword, he was told to put it away (John 18:11)...it is wrong for Mormons to draw a similarity between Smith's final actions and those of the Savior. There can be no comparison between the sacrificial death of Christ and the way Smith died!

Response

• Professional critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner would no doubt approve of the authors' conclusions about the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. Why wouldn't they? The same material can be found in a pamphlet that they sell entitled Jesus and Joseph Smith. For example:
  • Tanner: "It is interesting to compare the death of Joseph Smith with that of Jesus."
  • McKeever: "The differences between Jesus and Joseph Smith are obvious."
  • Tanner: "Jesus did go like a 'lamb to the slaughter'"
  • McKeever: "Jesus quietly and humbly went like a lamb to the slaughter"
  • Tanner: When Peter tried to defend Jesus with the sword, Jesus told him: "Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" (John 18:11)
  • McKeever: When Peter attempted to defend his Lord from the mob by drawing his sword, he was told to put it away (John 18:11)
  • Tanner: "can be seen that the death of Joseph Smith can in no way be compared to the death of Jesus."
  • McKeever: "can be no comparison between the sacrificial death of Christ and the way Smith died!"
• Additionally, the previously addressed narratives of Cyrus H. Wheelock's pistol, details of the "shoot-out," and the two dead men, can all be found in the Tanner's free pamphlet. The fact that this information can be had via the Tanner's Internet site, or thirty copies of the pamphlet can be had for the price of one dollar at the Tanners' store in Salt Lake City, demonstrates the stale and tired recompilation of 170+ years of asked-and-answered anti-Mormon rhetoric.
• While both sets of critics make much of Jesus telling Peter to put his sword away, both fail to mention the instruction was preceded by Jesus telling the apostles who did not have swords to sell their garments and buy one, which was followed by Peter cutting the servants ear off, then Jesus said it was enough. (Luke 22꞉36-51) Why did Jesus tell his followers to equip themselves with swords if he did not want them to defend themselves? Jesus himself said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10꞉34)
• Regardless, "Mormons" draw no such comparison between the matchless sacrifice of Christ and that of the cold-blooded murder of the Prophet. This theme of denying Joseph Smith status as a Martyr is popular in anti-Mormon publications. They conclude that his use of a gun, and attempted escape from a window (to save the lives of those in the room, no less) voids him as a martyr. While this defies definition, it is nonetheless used as a basis for denial. The question must be asked, can a martyr give resistance? There is nothing in its definition that suggests they cannot. Webster's definition of a Martyr certainly fits Joseph. The definition states that a martyr is someone "put to death for adhering to a belief, faith, or profession." The authors apparently want the definition to be re-written to exclude Joseph Smith. If the authors suggest he was put to death for some other reason, they fail to make their case. Can the authors deny Christ as the Savior because he resisted earlier attempts against His life? Paul similarly fought death through following a lengthy legal process in hopes of freedom. So are we to conclude that Paul is not a Martyr either? It is puzzling how the authors can contrast between Jesus and Joseph and arrive at the conclusion they do. We see through examples above, just how Joseph acted under due process. He was a willing sacrifice and his words and actions repeatedly confirm this.

Notes

Copyright © 2005–2024 FAIR. This is not an official Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The content of this page may not be copied, published, or redistributed without the prior written consent of FAIR.

We welcome your suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Wiki article.

Sites we recommend: Mormon Scholars Testify: Messages of faith from scholars who belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints