FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/"Questions and Answers" on Mormon Stories/Polygamy
|
| First Vision | A FAIR Analysis of: John Dehlin's "Questions and Answers" A work by author: John Dehlin
|
Treasure digging |
- "Joseph Smith married over 30 women"
- "some as young as 14 years old"
- "many of whom were married to other men at the time he married them"
- "Joseph Smith would frequently approach other men’s wives about being his own plural wives — often while the men were away"
- "Joseph Smith publicly lied about his practice of polygamy"
- "Joseph Smith...lied to his own wife (Emma) about the practice."
- "Joseph publicly slandered both Jane and William Law, including publicly calling Jane Law a 'whore'"
- "Joseph ordered the destruction of the printing press, which was both a violation of the 1st Amendment"
"Joseph Smith married over 30 women"
The author's unresolved question
"Joseph Smith married over 30 women"
"Joseph Smith married over 30 women"
Response to the author's claim
This is true. Subsequent questions, however, demonstrate that the author seems determined to paint a simplistic portrait of plural marriage: one that draws heavily on anti-Mormon sources and interpretations.
Joseph's polygamy is well-attested in Church books and periodicals, and is discussed in D&C 132 and even the History of the Church. Any implication that this was a sudden discovery which the Church tried to hide is unfair.
Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage (Polygamy)
Summary: Plural marriage—or one man marrying multiple women—has been practiced since ancient times (see Genesis 16:1–3; Doctrine and Covenants 132:34–39). It was practiced among the Latter-day Saints as commanded by God (see Doctrine and Covenants 132:32–34, 40), until God directed that the Saints discontinue it (see Official Declaration 1).
Joseph Smith is frequently criticized for his introduction and practice of plural marriage (often called polygamy).
From a Christian perspective, these attacks usually focus on arguing that polygamy is unchristian or unbiblical, and that Joseph hid the truth from the world.
From a secular perspective, it is asserted that the practice of polygamy sprung from Joseph's carnal desires to marry young women. Of particular interest is the fact that Joseph was sealed to women who were already married to other men (polyandry).
To view articles about plural marriage, click "Expand" in the blue bar:
Video from FAIR Conference.
Video from Church History Department.
Critical sources |
|
Notes
"some as young as 14 years old"
The author's unresolved question
"some as young as 14 years old"
"some as young as 14 years old"
Response to the author's claim
There were two wives aged fourteen. We can say nothing about one marriage, due to a lack of evidence. The other marriage was instigated by the bride's parents, and there is considerable evidence that the marriage was not consummated. Many of Joseph's marriages were concerned about sealing families together.
{{:
"many of whom were married to other men at the time he married them"
The author's unresolved question
"many of whom were married to other men at the time he married them"
"many of whom were married to other men at the time he married them"
Response to the author's claim
Again, the author gives no context or nuance to his critical picture. In all the cases of polyandry, there is little evidence that the relationships were consummated. In many cases, we know the husbands (some of them non-members) knew of the marriages and did not object. Emma never objected to the polyandrous marriages. No husband attacked Joseph or reproached him for violation of his marital rights or wife's honor. Many of Joseph's marriages—including these—seem to have been intended to seal families together.
Further reading
Further reading
FairMormon Answers articles
FairMormon web site
External links
Printed material
"Joseph Smith would frequently approach other men’s wives about being his own plural wives — often while the men were away"
The author's unresolved question
"Joseph Smith would frequently approach other men’s wives about being his own plural wives — often while the men were away"
"Joseph Smith would frequently approach other men’s wives about being his own plural wives — often while the men were away"
Response to the author's claim
This claim is false. There is only one recorded case of Joseph approaching a potential plural wife while her husband was on a mission. This case occurred at least two years after her husband's departure. The husband ratified the sealing upon his return. This claim too derives from discredited anti-Mormon sources.
Links to related information:
- Joseph's polyandrous marriages—Nothing in plural marriage mystifies—or troubles—members of the Church more than Joseph's polyandrous sealings. Marriage to multiple wives may seem strange, but at least it intrudes on our historical awareness, while many remain unaware of polyandry's existence in LDS history. But, most critical accounts do not provide all the facts. When we understand what these marriages consisted of—and what they did not consist of—they are much less strange. (Click here for full article)
Source(s) of the criticism
- Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 233, 422 n.47. ( Index of claims )
- Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 301 (PB) ( Index of claims )
- George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "...but we called it celestial marriage" (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), xiv, 6, 55, , 356. ( Index of claims , (Detailed book review))
- Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 29.( Index of claims )
- Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 3)
- Various on-line anti-Mormon ministries
"Joseph Smith publicly lied about his practice of polygamy"
The author's unresolved question
"Joseph Smith publicly lied about his practice of polygamy"
"Joseph Smith publicly lied about his practice of polygamy"
Response to the author's claim
The author ignores three vital facts:
- Joseph's actions were not illegal under the law as long as he did not announce them publicly. If he were to announce them, then he and his plural wives would have been guilty of breaking the law. This was a terrible double-bind without a perfect solution, especially because...
- If Joseph were to announce plural marriage in Nauvoo, he would have put himself, his wives, and thousands of innocent people at risk of mob violence—as had happened before, and was to happen again following his murder. If he did hide the truth from those who would use violence, that is understandable. However, even this is not as clear-cut as the author makes it, since....
- Joseph was often charged with a type and form of polygamy that he did not practice. Most of his denials were targeted at these accusations, and were technically true.
Patty Bartlett Sessions
Summary: Sylvia Session's mother Patty joined the Church in 1833, and was sealed to Joseph Smith on 9 March 1842. The reaction of her husband David is unknown, but he remained a faithful member and diligent missionary. He later married a plural wife, which caused difficulties in their marriage.
Patty Bartlett Sessions as a polyandrous wife of Joseph Smith
Joseph Smith's Polygamy: "Patty Bartlett", by Brian C. Hales
Joseph Smith's Polygamy: "After Louisa Beaman, Joseph Smith Seeks Almost Exclusively “Eternity Only” Sealings", by Brian C. Hales
Patty Bartlett Sessions
Summary: Sylvia Session's mother Patty joined the Church in 1833, and was sealed to Joseph Smith on 9 March 1842. The reaction of her husband David is unknown, but he remained a faithful member and diligent missionary. He later married a plural wife, which caused difficulties in their marriage.
Patty Bartlett Sessions as a polyandrous wife of Joseph Smith
Summary: Patty was sealed to Joseph while she had a living husband.
What did the husband of Patty Bartlett know about her sealing to Joseph Smith for eternity?
Patty and her husband David Sessions received their endowment after she had been sealed to Joseph three years earlier
Patty and her husband David Sessions were active members of the Church. They received their endowment in Nauvoo in 1845. Patty had been sealed for eternity to Joseph Smith three years earlier in 1842. After her husband David's death, she was sealed "for time" (re-married to an earthly husband) to John Parry in 1852. Patty's diary states,
Patty Bartlett daughter of Enoch and Anne Bartlett was born February 4, 1795 \Bethel Mane/ and was married to David Session June 28th 1812 who was the son of David and Rachel Sessions, he was born April the 4th 1790 Veshire Vermont I was Batpised into the church of Jesus Christ \of later day saints/ July 2, 1834 Mr Sessions was Baptised Aug <st> 1735 we received our we received our endowment Dec 16 1845 in Nauvoo. . . .
I was sealed to Joseph Smith by Willard Richards March 9, 1842 in Newel K Whitneys chamber Nauvoo for Eternity and I and if I do not live to attend to it myself when there is a place prepared I want some one to attend to it for me according to order Sylvia \my daughter/ was present when I was sealed to Joseph Smith.I was after Mr. Sessions death sealed to John Parry senior for time on the 27 of March 1852 G[reat] S[alt] L. City.[1]
Nothing is stated in Patty's diary regarding what her husband David thought of her sealing to Joseph
Nothing is stated regarding what her husband David thought of her sealing to Joseph, or whether or not he agreed to it. Brian Hales notes that, "David and Patty Sessions attended the Nauvoo Temple together, receiving their endowments on December 15, 1845, but they were not sealed in marriage." It would seem apparent that David was fully aware of her sealing to Joseph.
Joseph Smith's Polygamy: "After Louisa Beaman, Joseph Smith Seeks Almost Exclusively "Eternity Only" Sealings", by Brian C. Hales
See Biography:
- A biography of Patty Bartlett may be viewed on Brian and Laura Hales' website "josephsmithspolygamy.org".
Notes
"Joseph Smith...lied to his own wife (Emma) about the practice"
The author's unresolved question
"Joseph Smith...lied to his own wife (Emma) about the practice"
"Joseph Smith...lied to his own wife (Emma) about the practice"
Response to the author's claim
We know very little about what Joseph told Emma, and when he told her. Emma would always insist Joseph never practiced plural marriage, though she knew differently. We should be cautious, then, in being too dogmatic about Joseph's treatment of Emma. Once again, there is far more nuance than the author seems willing to admit, or is even aware of.
"Joseph ordered the destruction of the printing press, which was both a violation of the 1st Amendment"
The author's unresolved question
"Joseph ordered the destruction of the printing press, which was both a violation of the 1st Amendment"
"Joseph ordered the destruction of the printing press, which was both a violation of the 1st Amendment"
Response to the author's claim
- The First Amendment had no legal standing in the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor. It would not apply to anything except acts by the federal government until after the Civil War. The author is here displaying his ignorance of historical fact. It shows how little study he has given the matter.
- Furthermore, the suppression of the Expositor was not ordered by Joseph alone, but by the Nauvoo city council, which included non-Mormons.
- Finally, the suppression of the Expositor was legal under the law of the day—as courts found in later incidents under the same legal regime. (The destruction of the press itself was not legal and a misdemeanor—but Joseph quickly indicated his willingness to pay the fine if this was the case.)
Did Joseph Smith violate the law by ordering the Nauvoo Expositor destroyed?
<onlyinclude>
Life and Character |
|
Youth |
|
Revelations and the Church |
|
Prophetic Statements |
|
Society |
|
Plural marriage (polygamy) |
|
Death |
| Related articles: | John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo Summary: Mountebank, deceiver, and charmer, John C. Bennett's arrival at Nauvoo and his interactions with the Saints and Joseph would have a lasting impact that led indirectly to Joseph's death. |
| Nauvoo city charter Summary: Follow this to learn about historical and political events that preceded the Nauvoo Expositor issue. The powers granted Nauvoo were not seized by the Saints; they were granted lawfully, and could have been removed lawfully by the legislature. |
Was the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor legal?
The destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor led directly to the murder of Joseph and Hyrum
It is claimed by one critic of the Church that Joseph "could not allow the Expositor to publish the secret international negotiations masterminded by Mormonism’s earthly king." [1] Another claimed that "When the Laws (with others) purchased a printing press in an attempt to hold Joseph Smith accountable for his polygamy (which he was denying publicly), Joseph ordered the destruction of the printing press, which was both a violation of the 1st Amendment, and which ultimately led to Joseph’s assassination." [2]
The Expositor incident led directly to the murder of Joseph and Hyrum, but it was preceded by a long period of non-Mormon distrust of Joseph Smith, and attempts to extradite him on questionable basis.
The destruction of the Expositor issue was legal; it was not legal to have destroyed the type, but this was a civil matter, not a criminal one, and one for which Joseph was willing to pay a fine if imposed.
Joseph seems to have believed—or, his followers believed after his death—that the decision, while 'unwise' for Joseph, may have been in the Saints' interest to have Joseph killed. For a time, this diffused much of the tension and may have prevented an outbreak of generalized violence against the Saints, as occurred in Missouri.
The destruction of the first issue was legal, but it was not legal to destroy the printer's type
It is claimed that "When the Laws (with others) purchased a printing press in an attempt to hold Joseph Smith accountable for his polygamy (which he was denying publicly), Joseph ordered the destruction of the printing press, which was both a violation of the 1st Amendment, and which ultimately led to Joseph’s assassination." [3]
The destruction of the Expositor issue (i.e., the paper itself) was legal; it was not legal to have destroyed the type, but this was a civil matter, not a criminal one, and one for which Joseph was willing to pay a fine if imposed.
Joseph did not unilaterally order the action against the Expositor—it was the Nauvoo City Council (which included non-Mormons) which reached the unanimous decision. Having reached that decision, Joseph Smith then issued an order, as mayor, to carry out the Council's decision. As described in the Church's 2011 Priesthood/Relief Society manual:
On June 10, 1844, Joseph Smith, who was the mayor of Nauvoo, and the Nauvoo city council ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor and the press on which it was printed. [4]
History of the Church also describes this event [5]:
I [Joseph Smith] immediately ordered the Marshal to destroy it [the Nauvoo Expositor] without delay, and at the same time issued an order to Jonathan Dunham, acting Major-General of the Nauvoo Legion, to assist the Marshal with the Legion, if called upon so to do." [6]
The First Amendment is irrelevant to this discussion. In 1844, the First Amendment only applied to federal law; it had no application to state or local law until the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War.
Critical sources |
|
What caused William Law to apostatize from the Church and turn against Joseph Smith?
William Law in 1836: "I assure you I have found [Joseph Smith] honest and honourable in all our transactions which have been very considerable"
A Canadian, William Law joined the Church in 1836 and moved to Nauvoo in 1839. After having lived near Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, William wrote to a friend:
I have carefully watched his movements since I have been here, and I assure you I have found him honest and honourable in all our transactions which have been very considerable. I believe he is an honest upright man, and as to his follies let who ever is guiltless throw the first stone at him, I shant do it.[7]
William Law in 1844: "I cannot fellowship the abominations which I verily know are practiced by this man [Joseph]"
- 8 January 1844
- William Law released as Second Counselor in the First Presidency; Joseph Smith noted that William "was injuring him by telling evil of him…" William considered his release to be "illegal," since he had been called "by revelation," but wrote "I cannot fellowship the abominations which I verily know are practiced by this man [Joseph], consequently I am glad to be free from him."[8]
One of William’s key concerns seems to have revolved around plural marriage
His non-member son, Richard, later recounted:
About the year 1842, he was present at an interview between his father and the Prophet Joseph. The topic under discussion was the doctrine of plural marriage. William Law, with his arms around the neck of the Prophet, was pleading with him to withdraw the doctrine of plural marriage, which he had at that time commenced to teach to some of the brethren, Mr. Law predicting that if Joseph would abandon the doctrine, 'Mormonism' would, in fifty or one hundred years, dominate the Christian world. Mr. Law pleaded for this with Joseph with tears streaming from his eyes. The Prophet was also in tears, but he informed the gentleman that he could not withdraw the doctrine, for God had commanded him to teach it, and condemnation would come upon him if he was not obedient to the commandment.
During the discussion, Joseph was deeply affected. Mr. Richard S. Law says the interview was a most touching one, and was riveted upon his mind in a manner that has kept it fresh and distinct in his memory, as if it had occurred but yesterday.
Mr. Law also says, that he has no doubt that Joseph believed he had received the doctrine of plural marriage from the Lord. The Prophet's manner being exceedingly earnest, so much so, that Mr. Law was convinced that the Prophet was perfectly sincere in his declaration.[9]
William Law was excommunicated
- 18 April 1844
- William Law excommunicated. Austin Cowles of the Nauvoo high council, James Blakeslee, Charles G. Foster, and Francis M. Higbee joined him in leaving the Church, and he was supported in his opposition to Joseph by his brother Wilson.[10] They announced the formation of a ‘reform’ Church based upon Joseph’s teachings up to 1838, with William as president.
William even decided that Joseph Smith’s opposition to Missouri (and the treatment the Saints had received there) was "unChristian"!
The hostile spirit and conduct manifested by Joseph Smith, and many of his associates towards Missouri . . . are decidedly at variance with the true spirit of Christianity, and should not be encouraged by any people, much less by those professing to be the ministers of the gospel of peace.[11]
Williams had financial quarrels with Joseph
William had economic quarrels with Joseph, and was probably too fond of his own financial state, rather than helping the poor of the Church. William and his brother Wilson had bought the higher land on the outskirts of Nauvoo; the Church (through Joseph) owned the land in the river bottom. Joseph declared that new arrivals should purchase lands from the Church (this was in part an effort to help liquidate the Church’s debts), but William objected to this plan as prejudicial to his own financial interests.[12]
Hyrum presented Law and his wife with the revelation on plural marriage, which affected Law greatly
William was probably also troubled by the death of his wife and daughter even after Church leaders had prayed for them. Hyrum presented Law and his wife with the revelation on plural marriage. Long after the fact, William reported his reaction:
Hyrum gave it [the revelation] to me in his office, told me to take it home and read it, and then be careful with it, and bring it back again…[My wife Jane] and I were just turned upside down by it…We did not know what to do.[13]
Law ultimately called Joseph a "demon"
It is not clear whether Jane and William Law were ever sealed. Alexander Neibaur and Hyrum Smith both reported that Joseph told William he could not seal him to Jane because the Lord forbade it; Neibaur indicated that this was because William was "a Adulterous person."[14] There is no evidence of this other than Neibaur's statement however.
In the clash that followed, William began "casting the first stone," at Joseph’s supposed failings, and the man which he had once admired as honourable and without cause for complaint became, in his newspaper, a "demon," a power-mad tyrant, a seducer, and someone who contributed to the early death of young women.
Did Joseph Smith or his associates attempt to reconcile with William Law before he published the Nauvoo Expositor?
Prior to the publication of the Expositor, Hyrum Smith, Almon W. Babbitt, and Sidney Rigdon attempted to reconcile William Law to the Church
William Law announced he would reconcile only under the condition that Joseph publicly state that the practice of polygamy was "from Hell":
I told him [Sidney] that if they wanted peace they could have it on the following conditions, That Joseph Smith would acknowledge publicly that he had taught and practised the doctrine of plurality of wives, that he brought a revelation supporting the doctrine, and that he should own the whole system (revelation and all) to be from Hell.[15]
The Nauvoo Expositor declared that Joseph was ""blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape"
Shortly afterward, on 7 June 1844, the first (and only) edition of the Nauvoo Expositor was published. It detailed Joseph’s practice of plural marriage, and charged him with various crimes, labeling him a "blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape" and "a syncophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history...one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."[16]
How was the decision reached to destroy the Nauvoo Expositor?
Destruction of Expositor
- 8 June 1844
- Nauvoo city council meets regarding the Expositor.
- 10 June 1844
- The city council declares the Expositor a public nuisance and threat to the peace. This was not mere exaggeration; there were sixteen episodes of mob violence against controversial newspapers in Illinois from 1832 to 1867, and so the leaders’ fears of civil unrest were likely well-founded. The city council therefore ordered the press and the paper destroyed.[17]
- This was done. The decision to suppress the Expositor, while legal for the day, worsened a tense situation (in the years following the Expositor suppression, similar tactics would be used in 1862, 1893, 1918, and 1927).[18]
Historically, presses which violated community ideas of what was proper were a genuine risk to the public peace. Elijah Lovejoy, an anti-slavery editor of The Saint Louis Observer was killed by a pro-slavery mob in 1837.[19]
- Joseph and the city council might well have had memories of what happened in Missouri when some members of the Church became frustrated with the lack of legal redress for their mistreatment by Missouri citizens.
Missouri probably also set the stage for the legal decision to suppress the press. In 1833, the Evening and Morning Star, the LDS paper in Independence, was subject to being "razed to the ground" at the unanimous decision of the mob committee established to drive out the Mormons.[20] The mob's ultimatum later stipulated that the Mormons were not to publish anything before leaving.[21]
- The law of the day probably gave Joseph and the council the right to destroy the offending issue; however, since they had also ordered the press and type destroyed, they violated property laws. Joseph later said he would be happy to pay for the damages.[22] Critics are inconsistent when they complain about the Nauvoo city council's decision to suppress the Expositor (an action that was legal) and yet do not also acknowledge that Mormon presses had been destroyed by mobs acting with no legal authority whatever.
- Despite the fact that the Expositor's suppression was legal, the destruction of the press appeared high-handed to Church critics, and other newspapers began to call for the Mormons’ expulsion or destruction. Joseph and others were arrested on charges of "riot."
Why did the Nauvoo City Council feel it was necessary to destroy the Nauvoo Expositor?
One member recorded that Joseph told him that the destruction of the press was necessary for the Saints’ safety
It is claimed that Joseph "could not allow the Expositor to publish the secret international negotiations masterminded by Mormonism’s earthly king." [23]
The reality was that the Joseph and the City Council were concerned that the paper would cause turmoil among the Saints.
One member stated,
Brother Joseph called a meeting at his own house and told us that God showed to him in an open vision in daylight [meaning that this was not something he had just conjured up in dreams of the night] that if he did not destroy that printing press that it would cause the blood of the Saints to flow in the streets and by this was that evil destroyed.[24]
Joseph foresaw his own death as a result of the turmoil that was already occurring
Given Joseph’s numerous presentiments of his own death, it may well be that he knowingly chose this course of action to spare the members’ lives at the cost of his own. Said Joseph to Elizabeth Rollins:
I must seal my testimony with my blood.[25]
And later:
Some has supposed that Br Joseph Could not die but this is a mistake it is true their has been times when I have had the promise of my life to accomplish such & such things, but having accomplish those things I have not at present any lease of my life I am as liable to die as other men.[26]
What was John C. Bennett's role in the events leading up to the death of Joseph Smith?
The apostasy of John C. Bennett
- May 1842
- John C. Bennett is tried before a Church court. He confessed to "wicked and licentious conduct toward certain females in Nauvoo,"[27] and of past acts of exploiting of women he had attended as a doctor. He may also have performed abortions.[28] He had also frequented, and perhaps operated, a brothel.[29] (Bennett was not alone in this; with his encouragement Chauncy and Francis Higbee—who would write attacks on Joseph Smith in the Nauvoo Expositor—also participated in immoral acts and were disciplined for it.)
Bennett claimed that the doctrines he was using to seduce women in Nauvoo were the same as those taught privately by Joseph Smith with regard to plural marriage
Bennett’s apostasy caused particular problems because he claimed that the doctrines he was using to seduce women in Nauvoo were the same as those taught privately by Joseph Smith with regard to plural marriage. Thus, Joseph and the Church spent a great deal of time denying Bennett’s charges, while trying to keep plural marriage from becoming common knowledge for fear of the Church’s enemies.
Bennett left the Church and Nauvoo, and spoke widely about the "evils" of the Church and its leaders to non-member audiences. He also wrote a book and made a good deal of money telling stories against the Mormons; he was later to be associated with Sidney Rigdon’s splinter group and the "Strangite" break-off group, but he soon left them as well.
Orson F. Whitney said this about Bennett:
In May, 1842, the treachery and rascality of a man whom the Mormon leader had befriended and loaded with honors, became known to his benefactor. That man was Dr. John C. Bennett, Mayor of Nauvoo, Chancellor of its University, and Major-General of its legion. He had become associated with the Saints soon after their exodus from Missouri. Though a great egotist, he was a man of education, address and ability. That he had little or no principle was not immediately apparent. Considerable of a diplomat and possessing some influence in political circles, he rendered valuable aid in securing the passage by the Illinois Legislature of the act incorporating the city of Nauvoo. Hence the honors bestowed upon him by the Mormon people. Prior to that, and subsequently, he was Quartermaster-General of Illinois. Bennett professed great sympathy for the Saints. He joined the Church and apparently was a sincere convert to the faith.
Governor Thomas Ford, in his history of Illinois, styles Bennett "probably the greatest scamp in the western country." But this was not until long after the Mormons, thrice victimized, had become aware of his villainy.[30]
Was Joseph Smith responsible for an assassination attempt on former Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs?
An unknown assailant shot former Missouri governor Boggs through his window, severely wounding him
- 6 May 1842
- an unknown assailant shoots former Missouri governor Boggs through his window, severely wounding him. Later, John C. Bennett encourages Boggs to press charges against the Mormons for their alleged role in the attack.
It was assumed that Orin Porter Rockwell and the Latter-day Saints were responsible for the shooting
- 8 August 1842
- a warrant is issued for Joseph Smith’s extradition to Missouri to face charges in the attempted murder of Boggs; the claim is that Joseph Smith was an "accessory before the fact," and encouraged Orin Porter Rockwell in the deed. Joseph easily proved he had been in Illinois on the day of the shooting (hundreds of miles from Missouri) and obtains a writ of habeas corpus.
- December 1842
- the state Supreme Court of Illinois finds that the writ voiding the governor’s warrant was illegal. However, Joseph went before a federal judge to again challenge the warrant, and this court found that the warrant "lacked foundation" since it went beyond the statements which Boggs had made in his affidavit. The state Legislative Assembly considers repeal of the Nauvoo charter, but does nothing.
- February 1843
- Joseph Smith announces he will run for President of the United States.
- June 1843
- Missouri again attempted to extradite Joseph for trial. Joseph proceeded to Nauvoo, was welcomed by cheering crowds, and was again granted a writ of habeas corpus by the Nauvoo municipal court, voiding the warrant. The city council then made it illegal to arrest Joseph within Nauvoo, and gave the mayor (Joseph Smith, since the excommunicatin of Bennett) power to approve any outside warrants. This only increased the non-Mormons’ sense that Joseph was combining religious and civil power in an effort to put himself "beyond the law."
- 12 July 1843
- Joseph dictates the first written record of the revelations on plural marriage: D&C 132.
What is the timeline of events that led to Joseph Smith's death in Carthage?
There were attempts to arrest Joseph after the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor
- 13 June 1844
- The Nauvoo municipal court released Joseph on a writ of habeas corpus, finding that the charge of "riot" was unsubstantiated since the destruction of the press had been orderly.
- 14 June 1844
- Thus cleared, Joseph Smith (as mayor) took his seat as judge over the municipal court, and cleared all others charged the day following his own release. This recurrent mix of religious, executive, and judicial power again infuriated the anti-Mormons.
- 17 June 1844
- Joseph and others consented to be brought before another court, headed by a (then non-Mormon) justice of the peace, Daniel H. Wells. Wells again discharged them, but did not have the authority to acquit them.
- 18 June 1844
- Joseph Smith declares martial law in Nauvoo and calls out the militia to protect the city from anti-Mormon mobs.
Governor Ford writes to tell Joseph that he must face charges
- 22 June 1844
- Governor Ford writes to tell Joseph that he must face charges before the same judge that issued the writ for his arrest, because only this will appease the public. This requires Joseph to appear in a very hostile community, where feelings against the Mormons run high.
- 23 June 1844
- Joseph and Hyrum leave Nauvoo to seek refuge over the Mississippi. Some members appeal to Joseph to return, believing (contrary to Joseph’s promise) that the members of the Church would be despoiled and driven out if he did not. Joseph agrees to return, stating, "If my life is of no value to my friends it is of none to myself."
Governor Ford guaranteed the safety of Joseph and others if they went to Carthage
- 25 June 1844
- the state governor (Thomas Ford) believed that only a state trial would calm the furor over the Expositor. Joseph and fifteen others therefore received guarantees of safety and presented themselves in Carthage. They were freed on bail pending the October arrival of the circuit court. However, Joseph and Hyrum were jailed by a writ issued by Robert F. Smith, a Methodist minister, justice of the peace, and captain of the Carthage Greys militia. Joseph and Hyrum were accompanied to the jail by John Taylor, Willard Richards, Dan Jones, Stephen Markham, and John S. Fullmer. The latter three left to run errands, and were not readmitted, leaving only Joseph, Hyrum, John Taylor, and Willard Richards.
- 26 June 1844
- Governor Ford meets with the prisoners. He then disbands all the militia companies, except the hostile Carthage Greys.
Governor Ford left the hostile Carthage Greys to guard the jail
- 27 June 1844
- Ford leaves for Nauvoo, leaving two companies of Carthage Greys to guard the jail, while Ford takes a third to Nauvoo. He did not keep his promise that the prisoners could go with him to Nauvoo. After Ford’s departure, the discharged Warsaw militia company attacked the jail. The Carthage Greys gave only token resistance; they had loaded their weapons with gunpowder but no bullets. The Warsaw company stormed the jail, and murdered Joseph and Hyrum. John Taylor was severely injured; Willard Richards was unharmed.