Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 17

Chapter 16: Lamanites, Seed of Cain, and Polygamy

A FAIR Analysis of: Criticism of Mormonism/Books A work by author: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

Chapter 18: The Church and Its Leadership

Index of Claims made in Chapter 17: Joseph Smith

"They will circulate falsehoods to destroy your reputation, and also will seek to take your life" --Angel Moroni to Joseph Smith (1823)2

This review of Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson's book, Mormonism 101, is limited to an examination of Chapter Seventeen--"Joseph Smith." It is seemingly McKeever and Johnson's most important chapter, as the first sentence in their introduction repeats the quote that "Mormonism...must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith."3

The authors' approach is typical of writings hypercritical of Mormonism. The chapter generally consists of contextually lacking quotes from the writings of others, with no consideration given to enlighten the reader as to the original authors' intentions, biases, or interpretations. The challenge in reviewing this chapter rests in the fact that the review is not so much that of McKeever and Johnson's work, but rather a review of the fragments that McKeever and Johnson selectively pieced together from other works. The fact that so many of the issues dealt with in Mormonism 101 are already addressed elsewhere in various sources, both pro and con, is an indicator that the "fresh" material the authors present is, in reality, nothing more than an outdated and stale recompilation designed to provide fresh income.

The authors attempt to add the illusion of validity to their work by calling upon an odd mix of several names that bear the label of "Mormon" or "LDS." For example, the authors readily cite:

   * "former Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn"4
   * "LDS historian Richard Van Wagoner"5
   * "LDS historian Todd Compton"6
   * "Historian Reed C. Durham"7
   * "Mormon Church historian Andrew Jenson"8
   * "LDS historian Stephen C. LeSueur"9
   * "LDS historians James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard"10

Such a sampling would certainly lend itself to a balanced approach from an ill-informed reader's viewpoint. Yet while McKeever and Johnson allude to Smith's "high morals" and "impeccable integrity," as described by "Mormon historians,"11 one is left to wonder why, of the seven Latter-day historians they cite, not one of the selected quotes presents a "high moral" view." While there are volumes of accounts and testimonies of the prophet's good character, the authors did not consider or mention a single one.

The authors state that the descriptions of the prophet they present may seem "unfathomable by many faithful Latter-day Saints."12 What the reader may find surprising is that such a respected faith and devoted people could be the product of the unscrupulous, drunk, lying, womanizing deceiver that the authors present. Joseph's character is found as the ultimate target of doubt as the authors rely upon contextually lacking personal interpretations of historical detail. In the end, the reader will likely be shocked by the rapid succession of emotionally charged wording. In all, there are nearly 100 such instances, many of which are repeats, in thirteen pages of reproduced speculations and misrepresentations ranging from sexual issues to the occult. This review reflects a small, representative sampling of Chapter 17 in an attempt to disabuse the public mind of the images McKeever and Johnson have portrayed of the prophet.

Abandoning Joseph

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.13

McKeever and Johnson begin their critical look at the prophet with a surprising claim that the Church is publicly de-emphasizing Joseph Smith. This is a rather amazing statement to make as an introduction to a chapter on Joseph. 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 McKeever and Johnson lead the reader to believe otherwise, the Church is clear and direct in telling the esteem to which Joseph is held.

The Perfect Prophet

...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?16

Brigham Young once said:

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...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 before.17

It becomes immediately clear upon reading McKeever and Johnson's chapter that Joseph is being made out to be "one of the basest men that ever lived." Hence, the authors' position on Joseph is clear and it is should be evident that this book is really not about providing introductory or truthful information about the LDS faith or its leaders as its entry level "101" title hints.

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].18

Clearly, Joseph is not what McKeever and Johnson 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."19 Confirming this statement, B.H. Roberts said that 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.20

McKeever and Johnson ask their reader if Joseph can be accepted as a prophet if his behavior was sometimes less than what we expect of our political leaders. Such a comparison is dangerously absurd, as expectations of our political leaders are often times less than they should be when that leader is seemingly doing a good job. While many political leaders are embroiled in self-created scandal and affairs that they feel forced to lie about, they yet remain in their positions and profit from their scandal long after leaving office. Joseph, in comparison, confessed his faults, was never found guilty of any crime, never profited financially from his claims, and was put to death. According to McKeever and Johnson's formula, the reader will have little trouble accepting Joseph as a prophet when compared to many such described political leaders.

Opposite the cover-up practices employed by those politicians guarding their careers, Joseph was open and direct, 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.21

Continuing this theme in a letter to Oliver Cowdery, the Prophet said,

...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.22

Regardless of such ridiculous and absurd comparisons the authors seek to make, Joseph was only 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. What McKeever and Johnson fail to portray is a simple man who recognized the saving grace of Christ for his errors and sought to further the cause of righteousness.

If McKeever and Johnson believe a prophet must be without fault to be called as such, they no doubt have trouble with other servants of Christ. 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.23 Christ never said he only wanted perfect servants to do His work. Indeed, Christ's penchant for selecting men such as this show that He came not to call saints, but sinners. The authors clearly have trouble relating to the difficult journey through which the rest of us mere mortals progress.