“And in temporal labors thou shalt not have strength,
for this is not thy calling.”
—Revelation to Joseph Smith, July 1830
At long last we come the final installment of this series. I hoped to publish this a month ago, but I finally got Covid and was laid up for nearly three weeks. Thankfully, I’m feeling much better now, but it was really difficult to work up the enthusiasm to jump back into this subject. I’ve been researching the money business for the last three or four months now and I’m just kind of over it. I probably could have, and should have, done a few more passes and refined it a bit more (and honestly, broken it into two parts), but I’m ready to move on to something else. I apologize if it’s a bit choppy or unclear in places. If you’re not read parts one and two, I recommend you do before proceeding.
I want to preface this post by acknowledging those individuals who have been branded as apostates for their opposition to Joseph Smith: Ezra Booth (“the first apostate“), David Whitmer (his “apostate views“), John Corrill (his “apostate leanings“), and William Law (who “became an apostate“). There were undoubtedly more. It’s troubling how casually the church and its apologists have level the “apostasy” charge against those who broke with Joseph Smith, especially when they had good reason. (To its credit, the Church has begun to use the less inflammatory “dissenter.”) These men were not “apostates.” On the contrary, they were intelligent and reasonable men who, best I can tell, loved the Gospel, but plainly saw a disturbing pattern begin: Joseph Smith consolidating power and pursuing financial gain. While some spoke out contemporaneously (and paid the price), others reminisced about their concerns later in life. One of those men was Ebenezer Robinson, former secretary to the Kirtland High Council. He wrote,
“Immediately upon our return home from the mission spoken of in our last article (Summer, 1836), we discovered a great change had taken place in the Church, especially with many of its leading official members. A spirit of speculation was poured out, and instead of that meek and lowly spirit which we felt had heretofore prevailed, a spirit of worldly ambition, and grasping after the things of the world, took its place. Some farms adjacent to Kirtland were purchased by some of the heads of the Church, mostly on credit, and laid out into city lots, until a large city was laid out on paper, and the price of the lots put up to an unreasonable amount, ranging from $100 ($3,300) to $200 ($6,600) each, according to location. We were sorry to see this order of things, as we felt it would tend to evil instead of good…” (Emphasis added.)
The speculation Robinson mentions is the financial variety: “investment in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss.” Joseph, one of the “heads of the church,” acquired a staggering amount of land between 1834-1836. According to LDS historian and BYU professor Marvin Hill,
“Joseph Smith had purchased approximately 800 acres of land at a total cost of more than $55,000 ($1.8 million). To determine the total value of his land holdings in 1837, the purchase price of all Kirtland land (excluding the large Holmes and Martingale purchases), is multiplied by the change in Kirtland land values between the time of purchase and the average price per acre for 1837. This procedure suggests that Joseph Smith, singly or jointly, owned land equal in value to at least $88,000 ($2.8 million). The five largest purchases are known to have been on credit…
In addition, others with whom Joseph Smith had cosigned notes held land separately from him. This land also represented wealth standing behind the joint debts which were incurred, and thus value upon which lenders would be willing to make additional loans…[T]hese cosigners separately owned over 500 acres of land, equal in 1837 dollars to $42,400 ($1.4 million). Thus, the combined total is over 1300 acres, worth at least $130,000 in 1837 ($4.2 million). Assuming all this land had been purchased on credit, rising land prices in Kirtland would have resulted in a combined minimum equity (assuming no improvements or payments) of $59,500 in 1837 dollars ($1.9 million). This does not mean, however, that the land could actually have been sold for that amount. Joseph Smith and others with him owned sufficient quantities of land that any attempt to sell a large portion of it would have depressed the price.” (“The Kirtland Economy Revisited: A Market Critique of Sectarian Economics.” Brigham Young University Studies, vol. 17, no. 4, 1977, pp. 391–475).
Joseph arrived in Kirtland in 1831 penniless. He had no resources. He had no employment and thus no income. Yet he was able to acquire 800 acres of land within five years. As Hill notes, Joseph’s five largest purchases were made on credit, or debt, with the expectation that he would be able to flip the properties for a profit once they were subdivided. It is perplexing that Joseph would focus on buying up land in Kirtland when three years earlier Joseph wrote a letter to Noah Saxton, editor of the Rochester Observer, warning everyone to “flee to Zion (Missouri) before the overflowing scourge overtake you.” The “overflowing scourge” was likely a reference to the worldwide cholera outbreak between 1831-1833 that killed hundreds of thousands of people. Joseph, perhaps understandably (but erroneously), stated in the name of Jesus Christ that the hour of judgement had arrived. The United States, he claimed, would be an unparalleled scene of bloodshed, the wicked would be wiped off the earth, the lost northern tribes of Israel would come to America, and borrowing from Matthew 24, stated there were people then living to witness it all. It’s been 191 years and here we are.
Further, a revelation dated September 11, 1831 instructed Frederick G. Williams not to sell his farm,
“…for I, the Lord, will to retain a strong hold in the land of Kirtland, for the space of five years, in the which I will not overthrow the wicked, that thereby I may save some. And after that day, I, the Lord, will not hold any that shall go with an open heart up to the land of Zion (Missouri); for I, the Lord, require the of the children of men…And it is not meet that my servants, and Sidney Gilbert should sell their and their possessions here; for this is not wisdom until the residue of the church, which remaineth in this place, shall go up unto the land of Zion (Missouri). (D&C 64:21-22, 26-27)
Why go to Zion (Missouri)? Jesus was coming and He was coming soon.
“Behold, now it is called until the of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of , and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is shall not be at his coming. For after today cometh the —this is speaking after the manner of the Lord—for verily I say, tomorrow all the and they that do wickedly shall be as ; and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of Hosts; and I will not any that remain in .” (v. 23-24)
Those five years expired on September 11, 1836. If there was originally never an intent for Kirtland to be a long-term solution and was considered “Babylon,” which was to burned up when Jesus returned, why was he buying hundreds of acres of land, building a temple, establishing businesses, etc.? It’s yet another one of those instances in which Joseph seems to have forgotten previous prophecies and revelations when making new ones. It’s probably a by-product of intervening events, such as the expulsion from Missouri. To that end, Joseph wrote a new revelation on August 2, 1833 which established Kirtland as a stake of Zion,
“And again, verily I say unto you, my , a commandment I give unto you, that ye shall commence a work of laying out and preparing a beginning and foundation of the city of the of Zion, here in the land of Kirtland, beginning at my house.”
According to Section 94, Kirtland had an expiration date of September 1836, only three years away. After the failure of Zion’s Camp in 1834, Joseph informed the Elders that a second attempt to redeem Zion would happen September 11, 1836, so the timeline works. But September 11, 1836 came and went without incident.
Anyway, the is debt issue was compounded by another vexing problem: the Eastern branches, those whom Joseph scolded for not contributing their money to Zion’s Camp, were sending their poor to Kirtland. Fair? Probably not. It was undoubtedly a burden, especially since many of them arrived without the skills to support themselves. In response, Joseph wrote,
“The Saints have neglected the necessary preparation beforehand…the rich have generally stayed back and withheld their money, while the poor have gone first and without money. Under these circumstances what could be expected but the appalling scene that now presents itself?” (Messenger and Advocate, Sept. 1836.)
It was an untenable situation with no immediate resolution. On October 23, 1835, with prospects grim, leadership offered a group prayer “that the Lord will give us means sufficient to deliver us from all our afflictions and difficulties, wherein we are placed by means of our debts.” Despite their plea, debts continue to mount and Church leaders began to prosecute those who they believed weren’t sufficiently charitable. Martin Harris’ brother, Preserved, was charged with “want of benevolence to the poor and charity to the church.” Richard Van Wagoner wrote in his biography of Sidney Rigdon,
“Considered to be rich like his brother Martin in New York, Harris was charged with not being ‘liberal’ in his offerings. He was found guilty and disfellowshipped…During Harris’ trial Frederick G. Williams acknowledged the church’s poverty and that its debts were an embarrassment to church leaders. Additional contributions, he said, were needed to alleviate this distress. Rigdon emphatically declared the ‘law of God’ regarding property: ‘it is the duty of the saints to offer their all to the will of God for the building up of the Kingdom & for the sustenance of the poor.’ A true believer, he asserted, consecrates his ‘property, life & all he possesses.” (Sidney Rigdon: a Portrait of Religious Excess, p. 180. Emphasis added. Rigdon, it seems, uses the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Jesus has only asked for a broken heart and contrite spirit, not all of our property and possessions.)
So, contrary to what some have claimed, there was and is nothing voluntary about the LDS system. If leadership could put you on trial, find you guilty and then disfellowship you based on a perceived lack of debt relief payments charity, then the “law of consecration” (and later “tithing”) was very much compulsory. Charity, by definition, cannot be compulsory. I’m not so cynical as to doubt Joseph and Sidney genuinely wanted to assist the poor. I believe they did. But appeals to assist the poor were often coupled with appeals to alleviate their often-intertwined personal and church debts. In my opinion, this was a severe abuse of power. Yet despite these more drastic measures, the debts remained. I don’t think we appreciate how big of a problem this was. In the summer of 1836, when the situation had reached a breaking point, providence, it seemed was about to smile on Joseph.
THERE’S GOLD IN THEM THAR CELLARS
Ebener Robinson wrote in his autobiography, The Return,
“A brother in the church, by the name of Burgess, had come to Kirtland and stated that a large amount of money had been secreted in the cellar of a certain house in Salem, Massachusetts, which had belonged to a widow, and he thought he was the only person now living, who had knowledge of it, or to the location of the house.”
It’s hard not to smile, maybe even laugh a bit, at such a claim and Joseph’s naivete in believing it. (Much in the same way we chuckle a bit at the idea that Jacob consummated his marriage with whom he believed to be Rachel, only to find out the next morning it was Leah. [Genesis 29:25.] How does he not realize he’s with the wrong sister?) Joseph probably should’ve been at a bit suspicious of someone claiming to be the only person alive to know about a hidden treasure secreted away in a basement, but his desperation likely left him vulnerable to the bamboozle. That’s not a criticism. We’re all prone to irrational and shortsighted decisions, especially during times of trial. Believing the answer to the debt problem lay some 600 miles away in the Bay State, a contingent of Joseph, Hyrum, Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery departed Kirtland, travelled through New York, and arrived in Salem on August 4, 1836. Two days later Joseph produced a revelation later canonized as D&C 111,
“I, the Lord your God, am not displeased with your coming this journey, notwithstanding your follies. I have much treasure in this city for you, for the benefit of Zion (Missouri), and many people in this city (Salem), whom I will gather out in due time for the benefit of Zion (Missouri), through your instrumentality. Therefore, it is expedient that you should form acquaintance with men in this city, as you shall be led, and as it shall be given you. And it shall come to pass in due time that I will give this city into your hands, that you shall have power over it, insomuch that they shall not discover your secret parts; and its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours. Concern not yourselves about your debts, for I will give you power to pay them. Concern not yourselves about Zion (Missouri), for I will deal mercifully with her. Tarry in this place, and in the regions round about; And the place where it is my will that you should tarry, for the main, shall be signalized unto you by the peace and power of my Spirit, that shall flow unto you. This place you may obtain by hire. And inquire diligently concerning the more ancient inhabitants and founders of this city; For there are more treasures than one for you in this city. Therefore be ye as wise as serpents and yet without sin, and I will order all things for your good as fast as ye are able to receive them. Amen.” (D&C 111, Emphasis added)
The most important part of the revelation, for our purposes, comes towards the end: “for there are more treasures than one for you in this city.” In context, “more treasures” refers to additional financial treasure, the “gold and silver” previously mentioned. In the opening line, financial treasure and people are clearly separate things, so we need to carry that distinction throughout the entire revelation. But because this revelation unequivocally failed, church historians reinterpret “treasure” in order to uphold Joseph’s prophetic infallibility. We’ll get to some examples in a moment. On August 9th Joseph wrote a letter to Emma from Salem which verifies Robinson’s recollections of a man named Burgess informing him of the treasure and that they believed they had found the house,
“…with regard to the graat object of our mishion (the treasure) you will be anxtious to know, we have found the house since Brother Burjece left us, very luckily and providentialy, as we had one spell been most discouraged, but the house is ocupied and it will require much care and patience to rent or by it, we think we shall be able to effect it if not now within the course of a few months, we think we shall be at home about the midle of septtember.”
The group spent the next several weeks in and around the Salem area but were never able to secure the house in question, and unfortunately for Joseph, no treasure was ever found. Why didn’t they find it? The obvious answer is that the revelation wasn’t from God. The Salem revelation, like the 1832 South Carolina revelation (the so-called “Civil War Prophecy” which is actually and end of the world prophecy), was never published during Joseph’s lifetime. I can only guess because they were both something of an embarrassment. The revelation’s failure presents another problem for LDS apologists as it’s another blight on Joseph’s prophetic track record. In almost all the commentaries and articles on the revelation that I’ve found, the failed prophecies go unacknowledged, unmentioned and undiscussed. For example, at the 2017 FAIR conference, Elizabeth Kuehn said,
“With concerns about the Missouri Saints, the redemption of Zion, and financing church growth on his mind, Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery left Kirtland for a trip to the Eastern United States in late July. While in Salem, Massachusetts Joseph received a revelation on August 6, 1836, now canonized in the LDS version of the Doctrine and Covenants as D&C 111. This revelation offered specific reassurance – that Zion would be redeemed and that the church would be able to repay its debts.” (Emphasis added.)
She doesn’t mention that the promised treasure was never found, Zion was never redeemed, Salem was never given into their hands and Joseph died still deeply indebted. How does one casually gloss over these facts? Old friend Steven C. Haper writes,
“Joseph is overwhelmed with debt to the point of taking unsound risks. The Lord replies that he will gather Salem’s treasures and souls for Zion (Missouri) in due time…On August 19 they visited the East India Marine Society Museum, comparatively relaxed in their efforts to obey the revelation and stop being too concerned with their debts and with things they could not control in Zion and focus instead on souls both past and present…”
And here’s where Harper’s reinterpretation begins,
“These efforts led to some of the ‘treasures’ the Lord mentioned in verse 10. Returning from another trip to Salem in 1841, Hyrum Smith met with Erastus Snow, gave him a copy of section 111, and urged him to go there and harvest the ‘many people’ the Lord promised to gather in due time. At great sacrifice to himself and his family, Elder Snow went. He and Benjamin Winchester started the harvest and others followed. In 1841 the Salem Gazette announced that ‘a very worthy and respectable laboring man, and his wife, were baptized by immersion in the Mormon Faith.’ Six months later the Salem Register noted that ‘Mormonism is advancing with a perfect rush in this city.’ The Church has inquired into Salem’s early inhabitants too. The early records of Salem and surrounding areas have been preserved and are accessible for genealogical research leading to the sacred ordinances of the House of the Lord.”
In order to absolve Joseph of false revelation, Harper suggests the “treasure” was the people of Salem and access to records for “proxy ordinances,” something the Book of Mormon unequivocally condemns. But as mentioned, “there are more treasures than one” is a reference to money, or “gold and silver,” not people. Further, in 1841 Zion (Independence) was far in the rearview mirror, so the Salem converts can’t be a fulfillment of D&C 111. LDS historian and professor Craig James Ostler offers his own interpretation,
“The journey to Salem, Massachusetts, brought forth fruits much more valuable than treasure hunting. On one hand, it is difficult to determine with absolute certainty this journey’s influence on the Prophet Joseph Smith and the other three leaders of the Church. On the other hand, it appears to be clear that they had many opportunities to learn about the need for the Latter-day Saints to welcome into their communities individuals of good-will from all faiths or even of no membership to any particular faith. The lessons of justice, equality, fairness, tolerance, and inclusion, so important to the fledgling restored Church, were further imprinted upon the minds of its leaders during their time in Salem.”
This may be so, but again, the revelation specifically states that God had financial treasure for the Saints. Ostler continues,
“It appears highly likely that the Lord sought to ensure that these brethren learned the distinction between intolerance for wickedness and tolerance for differing religious beliefs. Later in Nauvoo, the Prophet would write to welcome individuals of all religious persuasions or no religious persuasions to join with the Saints in building up that city—a city that had similar aspirations to the Salem of the founders and ancient inhabitants about whom the Lord commanded Joseph to inquire. The Salem dream was shattered when its early inhabitants became overzealous in their attempts to establish a New Jerusalem, persecuting innocent people. Evidently, the Lord hoped to warn and educate the early leaders of his Church concerning the tendency of some in religious societies to establish their own righteousness by excessively crusading against real and supposed evils among them.” (Emphasis added.)
Harper and Ostler, like Kuehn, fail to mention no treasure “(“gold and silver”) was found, that Zion was never redeemed, Salem was never handed over to the Saints and that Joseph died heavily in debt. Ostler pretends to know what God was thinking in writing, “evidently, the Lord hoped” to give them a morality lesson on religious tolerance. The idea of God “hoping” something strikes me as very odd. Official church manuals don’t fare much better. We read in the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual,
“The Lord allowed the Prophet Joseph to go to Salem, for in Salem was a treasure of much greater value to the kingdom than that for which they had come. There were many souls in Salem whom the Lord knew would accept the gospel. Their conversion would greatly benefit the Lord’s work because these new members of the Church would unite their efforts with those of the Saints and contribute generously to the cause of Zion.” (Emphasis added.)
No mention that the rumored treasure was never found. You’ll notice that “Zion,” which appears in the original revelation, has been replaced with “the cause of Zion.” “Zion” (Independance) and “the cause of Zion” aren’t the same thing. (In doing my preliminary research on Zion, I found that “the cause of Zion” was a phrase in wide circulation in Christian writings before the church was organized in 1830. It simply meant spreading Christianity, rather a designated geographical location or the LDS church.) Sidney Sperry, for whom I have much admiration, does his best to try and explain the unfulfilled prophecy of Salem falling into the hands of Joseph and his companions,
“This verse is obviously a prophecy of some future happening, even yet future, and evidently looks forward to a day when the Lord’s Kingdom will be established upon the earth, when towns, cities, and nations will be governed under his direction by brethren holding the Priesthood. When that day comes, the Elders of the Church will govern even Salem without being shamed by the people of the city. Its wealth will also be theirs.” (Emphasis added.)
The revelation was given to Joseph Smith. Salem was to fall into his hands, not into the hands of some future generation. That didn’t happen. FAIR LDS, incidentally, appears to have memory-holed their entry. One can only speculate why. We find in these various explanations a very real reluctance to state the obvious: the Salem revelation was a false revelation that justified a predetermined course of action based on faulty information.
With the hopes of treasure and financial rescue dashed, Joseph turned to another plan to solve the debt crisis. Robinson writes,
“Failing to secure the Salem treasure, and no demand for city lots, with their debts pressing heavily upon them, it evidently seemed necessary that some ways and means should be devised to extricate themselves from their present embarrassments. To this end a banking institution was organized, called the ‘Kirtland Safety Society.'”
THE KIRTLAND SAFETY SOCIETY
I don’t understand all the legal complexities of the Kirtland Safety Society’s (KSS) founding and failure. I’ve read a lot of articles, both pro and con, from LDS as well secular sources in the last few months, but it remains elusive to me. One unironically needs a PhD in economics and a thorough knowledge of American banking history to make sense of it. I have neither. So, I want to keep this part short and focus more on the aftermath. (I’ll leave links to resources on the historical and economic nuts and bolts of the Society at the end of this post.) Here’s a brief history from Jeffrey Walker,
“As Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery returned from Salem, Massachusetts, in September 1836, it appears that they had finalized their decision to open a bank in Kirtland. By mid-October the venture was organized to accept money from initial shareholders in exchange for stock. To facilitate greater participation, stock shares were given the unusually low face value of $50 ($1,650) per share, in contrast to other local banks offering shares for between $100 and $400 per share. Small quarterly installment payments ($0.13 per share) further allowed more to participate. Shares were sold at a deeply discounted price, selling, on average, for $0.2625 per share, or .525 percent of the face value. Sidney Rigdon made ten separate donations totaling $751.64 ($24,800), for which he received 3,000 shares of stock with a face value of $150,000 ($4.9 million). Joseph Smith and his family contributed fifty-one times for a net total of $1,310.18. By the end of October 1836, the venture had attracted thirty-six subscribers or investors contributing more than $4,000 ($132,000). Joseph Smith and his family would become the largest investors in the Society, owning collectively 12,800 shares. ($21.1 million). In this manner the venture was funded through private investors who in return received stock in the company. A contemporaneous account notes that the Safety Society was further financially backed by real property. The venture then would make loans documented by banknotes. Most often the borrower collateralized these loans with farmland.”
As with the Salem revelation, there’s a concerted effort to absolve Joseph Smith of wrongdoing. When Joseph’s prophecies and revelations fail, they are “conditional” and the Saints are generally blamed for not following Joseph. When his prophecies and revelations are claimed to be successful, it’s only because the apologists and historians redefine and reinterpret words. It’s mildly infuriating, but there’s no other way to spin Joseph’s lousy prophetic track record. As for the failure, many have concluded that the KSS was a bad idea from the beginning and it’s easy to understand why. Both internal and external forces contributed to its demise. For starters, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were both named officers (as well as being the two single largest investors) of the KSS despite neither having any banking experience. Secondly, the Ohio Legislature denied granting a charter and thus the KSS became an “anti-bank.” FAIR opines and Joseph and Sidney were “probably hasty and somewhat naïve about the undertaking.” Max Parkin attributed the failure to “unsound speculations in land and credit buying.” Robert Kent Fielding writes that,
“As it was projected, there was never the slightest chance that the Kirtland Safety Society anti-Bank-ing Company could succeed. Even though their economy was in jeopardy, it could scarcely have suffered such a devastating blow as that which they were themselves preparing to administer to it…The Safety Society proposed no modest project befitting its relative worth and ability to pay. Its organizers launched, instead, a gigantic company capitalized at four million dollars, when the entire capitalization of all the banks in the state of Ohio was only nine and one third million.” (Emphasis added.)
Stanley Kimball noted,
“The stock ledger of the Safety Society reveals that 200 persons subscribed to 79,420 shares of stock at a face value of approximately $3,854,000 ($125.8 million). Yet the paid-up cash reserve totaled a meager $20,725 ($674,300).” (“Sources on the History of the Mormons in Ohio: 1830-38,” BYU Studies, vol. 11, Summer 1971, pp. 531-532.)
Externally, Grandison Newell, an enemy of Joseph Smith, appears to have waged a proxy war in order to destroy the KSS. Smith and Rigdon were charged and fined $1,000 ($32,300) for violating an 1816 Ohio Banking Act (operating without a charter), despite the fact that the 1816 Act was superseded by the 1824 Act. And then there was the financial panic of 1837 which effectively ended the KSS. In July 1837 Joseph Smith resigned as cashier.
“Parrish and Frederick G. Williams assumed management of the KSSABC until the institution closed its doors in November with about $100,000 ($3.23 million) in unresolved debt. Smith appointed Granger as his agent to clear up his Kirtland affairs, as Smith was named in seventeen lawsuits with claims totaling $30,206.44 ($1.04 million) over debts incurred in the failure of the KSSABC. According to LDS Church scholars, ‘Four of these suits were settled; three were voluntarily discontinued by the plaintiffs; and ten resulted in judgments against Joseph Smith and others. Of these ten judgments, three were satisfied in full, three were satisfied in part, and only four were wholly unsatisfied.’ The church also raised and put up $38,000 ($1.23 million) in bail money for Smith at the Geauga County Court which was to be held to satisfy any judgment that might be rendered against Smith.”
Parrish was later accused of embezzling either $20,000 ($646,000) or $25,000 ($808,000), depending on the source. According to Heber C. Kimball, Parrish admitted to the crime. However, any student of LDS history knows that there are good sources and poor sources. And then there’s Heber C. Kimball. In the annals of Mormonism, there is likely no source more unreliable than Heber C. Kimball, so take that for what you will. Apparently, Joseph Smith approached Frederick G. Williams, Joseph’s councilor and justice of the peace, for a warrant to search Parrish’s trunk. Williams declined. According to Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph replied, “I insist upon a warrant, for if you give me one I can get the money and if you do not I will break you from your office (of councilor).” Williams, perhaps tired of the chicanery, reportedly said, “Well, break it is, then and we will strike hands on it.” Joseph then reportedly said, “from henceforth I drop you from my quorum in the name of the Lord.” The Williams family remembers it differently. Williams’ son, Ezra, wrote that Joseph later returned to Williams Sr. “on bended knee, crying like a child, humbly asked my father for forgiveness, admitting he wrong and my father was right.” (Rigdon, p. 200). Given Joseph’s propensity for histrionics I’m inclined to believe the latter version, though I’m sure both are embellished to a degree.
Anway, in November 1837 the KSS finally failed. According to FAIR,
“Joseph probably suffered more legal repercussions than anyone from the event. There is no evidence that Joseph was ‘getting rich,’ or attempting to do so, from the bank. He paid more for his stock in the bank than 85% of the subscribers, and he put more of his own money into the bank than anyone else, save one person.”
His family also had more to gain than anyone else. Where did he get that money to invest in the first place? FAIR continues,
“In June 1837, Kirtland land values had increased by 800% in just one year, so the idea of backing the bank with land does not seem unreasonable. Furthermore, the bank’s weakness became a drain on Joseph, and he expended considerable resources trying to save it—including obtaining three new loans—which only worsened his position in the end. Joseph was left with debts of $100,000 ($3.23 million). He had that value in goods and land (acquired on credit), but it was difficult to convert these to cash…”
Land and goods, of course, that he acquired on credit. Why was Joseph Smith, a man with no banking experience setting up an “anti-bank” in a city that according the 1831 revelation was to be burned up at the Second Coming? It speaks to Joseph’s inability to consider consequences of his behavior and action. Further, Joseph produced a revelation in 1830 that he was not to get involved in temporal matters. He did anyway. Did he forget the 1830 revelation? The result of acquiring land and goods on credit, as we discussed in part two, was ballooning debt. Then to solve the debt problem, he started a bank in which he and his family were the largest investors. His personal financial gain was clearly a factor, especially considering the Smith family held the most shares. Amazingly, Joseph didn’t learn his lesson and would promote another investment scheme under the guise of revelation once the Saints settled in Nauvoo. More on that later.
FAIR, whose sole purpose is to defend Joseph Smith and Mormonism, offers the most perplexing analyses of the KSS I’ve read. They write,
“The Kirtland Safety Society is an excellent example of why Latter-day Saints do not put their trust in men, but in God. It also demonstrates that the Saints will continue to support fallible men as prophets of God.”
I’ve read this a dozen times and I’m still not sure what they mean. First, we do put our trust in men. “Follow the prophet, he knows the way!” The early Saints were required to put their trust in Joseph Smith and follow him. No one was allowed to challenge him. How many failures do we grant a “prophet” before we are allowed to question his (or her) word as God’s word and will? I think the most disturbing aspect of the KSS’s failure is that in the aftermath we begin to see the first shades of Joseph’s emerging totalitarianism. Perhaps it was a response to his personal and financial life spiraling out of control. I don’t know. But from this point forward Joseph begins exercise near total control over the Saints, something not lost on the so-called Kirtland “apostates.”
THE KIRTLAND DISSENSION
As I mentioned in a previous post, the so-called “Kirtland Apostasy” wasn’t an apostasy. “Apostasy” is the renunciation of a religious belief. The Kirtland Dissention was a rebuke of Joseph Smith and the first major schism in the Latter-Day Saint movement. Before the KSS collapsed, Warren Cowdery wrote one of the most eloquent and damning rebukes of Joseph’s escalating grasps at power,
“Money we all know is power, and he who possesses most of it, has the most men in his power. If we give all our privileges to one man, we virtually give him our money and our liberties, and make him a monarch, absolute and despotic, and ourselves abject slaves or fawning sycophants. If we grant privileges and monopolies to a few, they always continue to undermine the fundamental principles of freedom, and sooner or later, convert, the purest and most liberal form of Government, into the rankest aristocracy. These we conceive, are matters of history, matters of fact that cannot be controverted. Well may it be said, if we thus barter away our liberties, we are unworthy of them. The siren song of liberty and independence is but an empty name, and he who does not allow himself to think, to speak, to reason and act only as his wealthy landlord shall dictate, has virtually resigned the dignity of an independent citizen and is as much a slave, as if the manacles were upon his hands. His boasted liberty is a deception, and his independence a phantom. We will here remark, (although a little digressing from the subject under discussion and the particular object we had in view when we commenced this article,) that whenever a people have unlimited confidence in a civil or ecclesiastical ruler or rulers, who are but men like themselves, and begin to think they can do no wrong, they increase their tyranny, and oppression, establish a principle that man, poor frail lump of mortality like themselves, is infallible. (Messenger and Advocate, July 1837. Emphasis added.)
Elizabeth Keuhn said in a FAIR conference,
“Many of the members who became dissenters in the summer of 1837 felt they had been misled, or even betrayed. Joseph Smith had promised them financial success if they would invest their resources and help him build the city of Kirtland. In April 1837, he had described Kirtland as a grand and expansive city that would be a center of commerce, where the ‘Kings of the earth would come to behold the glory thereof.’ However, as a result of the Panic of 1837, the Saints were left with failed businesses, unsaleable land, and an inability to provide for their families…
“Another part of this perceived failure, was Joseph Smith’s failure as a temporal leader as well as a prophet. Some dissenters felt he had overreached by directing the Saints in temporal matters. Joseph Coe opposed the prophet’s involvement in and control over temporal matters, arguing that it went beyond the purview of his spiritual leadership (it did) and there were others who could better direct such matters (there were). Oliver Cowdery argued that Joseph should not be able to dictate what he did with land he owned (correct). Warren Cowdery, Oliver’s brother, called Smith a tyrant (also correct). Many dissenters seemed to chafe under the idea of Joseph leading in both spiritual and temporal matters as well as the degree of control he exercised over the church and its members.” (Emphasis added.)
I don’t know if this is an inadvertent admission, but Kuehn says the quiet part out loud: Joseph did control almost every aspect of the Saints’ lives, and it’s a remarkable thing for a Latter-Day Saint to acknowledge. My working theory going into this post was that Joseph Smith was not simply the benevolent and virtuous prophet of the Lord who was trying to lead the stubborn Saints into the presence of God. (Yes, of course he had his virtues, too.) Rather, he was a man who succumbed to the temptations of power and control. Few are immune from such temptations. So, it was immensely gratifying to find this article from Marvin S. Hill, former BYU professor and historian, and someone much smarter than I’ll ever be, confirm my hypothesis. Hill’s excellent article, Cultural Crisis in the Mormon Kingdom: A Reconsideration of the Causes of Kirtland Dissent, persuasively makes the case that trouble had been brewing for years and the KSS’s failure was the final straw. He writes,
“The Mormon Church was undergoing a period of considerable growth and change during these years, characterized by a concentration of authority at the top and increasing control of every aspect of life. It was at Kirtland that Smith was sustained as head of the entire church, in Missouri as well as Ohio, and at Kirtland that Smith began to supervise more of the economic life. Here too, Smith began to utilize a bloc of Mormon votes to influence local elections. Social developments also reflected this theocratic tendency. Pressure was put upon the Saints to get them to conform to the Word of Wisdom and marriage came more directly under church control…Thus at Kirtland the many dimensions of the Mormon kingdom were first made apparent. A by-product of increased control over the economic, political and social life was a growing feeling among many that the prophet and the church were becoming too worldly and too powerful, too much involved in regulating areas of life beyond their rightful domain.” (Emphasis added.)
Contemporary accounts agree. William McLellin, an “apostate,” wrote that Smith and Rigdon were “grasping like the Popes of Rome, both the temporal and spiritual powers of the church.” (McLellin, despite his excommunication for “apostasy” in 1838, never renounced the Book of Mormon.) Warren Parrish infamously said that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon “lie by revelation, swindle by revelation, cheat and defraud by revelation, run away by revelation, and if they do not mend their ways, I fear they will at last be damned by revelation.” (Again, who are the real prophets in the Mormon movement?) I think I’ve provided enough information in these posts to support Parrish’s claim. Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt, David Whitmer and others also made complaints against Smith and Rigdon. Stephen Burnet, in correspondence with a Brother Johnson, wrote,
“…my heart is sickened within me when I reflect upon the manner in which we with many of this Church have been led and the losses we have sustained all by means of two men in whom we placed implicit confidence…[who] by undue religious influence…filched the monies of the Church from the brought them nigh unto destruction.”
Burnet was forced to sell his store and noted his “property is worth nothing in Kirtland.” John Whitmer previously wrote that church leaders “were lifted up in pride and lusted after forbidden things of God.” Joseph Brewster, Hill notes, wrote “that the Lord did not intend his kingdom to be a temporal one,” that “the temporal work Joseph tried” was not of God. I think Brewster is correct. (The attempt to establish a geographical Zion was probably Joseph’s biggest error. I’ll have much more on this in the Zion post.)
David Whitmer, Hill suggests, spoke for the majority of the dissenters, often referred to as “The Old Standard,” in stating Joseph Smith “had fallen from grace in claiming infallibility, in changing previous revelations to match later church reorganization (true), in adding High Priests (true) and a higher priesthood to the church (true), and in hastening the gathering to Zion prior to the Lord’s time.” Hill adds that the core issue among the dissenters was that they “all lamented the degree of aggrandizement implicit in the kingdom, the concentration of power, the seeming lack of restraint upon a man they believed claimed infallibility and would heed no criticism.” Indeed, Benjamin Winchester reported that Joseph Smith claimed in a discourse given at the temple that,
“He was authorized by God Almighty to establish His Kingdom—that he was God’s prophet and God’s agent and that he could do whatever he should choose to do, therefore the Church had NO RIGHT TO CALL INTO QUESTION anything he did, or to censure him for the reason that he was responsible to God Almighty alone.”
Did Joseph say this? I don’t know. I don’t find it implausible given Joseph’s behavior at this time. If he did say it, then he seems to be manifesting delusions of grandeur or unwittingly invoking the “Divine Right of Kings” doctrine, which states that a monarch is not subject to any earthly power or authority because the right to rule comes through divine authority. Raising objection to the King, or in this case the prophet, was akin to raising objection to God. For the Latter-Day Saints, there’s no meaningful difference between Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ. One of Joseph’s early revelations was revised to state that “this generation shall have my word through you.” (D&C 5:10. “Through you” is not found in the original. This revision, too, is possibly a symptom of his grandiosity.)
However, the Kirtland Dissention was about more than spiritual and temporal control. Failed prophecies and promises only added fuel to the dissenter’s fire. Hill rightly points out that “(t)here is some evidence that the waning confidence in the prophet which manifested itself in 1836 and 1837 had its roots in the failure of Zion’s camp two years earlier.” I agree. The Saints were told via revelation from God that Zion would be redeemed with power, yet they were turned away when they reached Zion’s door. Joseph blamed the “churches abroad” for withholding their money, but it was an ill-prepared and underfunded expedition launched on the expectation that the Missouri militia would escort the Saints to Independence when they arrived. Governor Dunklin, wisely not wanting to inflame tensions, reneged at the last hour leaving the Saints outside their presumed promised land. Many of the Kirtland dissenters were members of Zion’s camp, which is generally considered Joseph’s first major prophetic failure.
The aforementioned “apostate,” John Corrill, left the church in 1839 and published a pamphlet about his time with the church in which he addressed both the money issue and Joseph’s repeated prophetic misfires,
“If Smith, Rigdon and others, of the leaders, had managed wisely and prudently, in all things, and manifested truly a Christian spirit, it would have been very difficult to put them down. But their imprudence and miscalculations, and manifest desire for power and property, have opened the eyes of many, and did more to destroy them than could possibly have been done otherwise. My opinion is, that if the Church had been let alone by the citizens, they would have divided and subdivided so as to have completely destroyed themselves and their power, as a people, in a short time…”
Corrill passed away in 1842 and unfortunately didn’t see his prediction come to pass. (Who’s the real prophet?) He then addressed the Saints directly,
“I have left you, not because I disbelieve the bible, for I believe in God, the Saviour, and religion the same as ever; but when I retrace our track, and view the doings of the church for six years past, I can see nothing that convinces me that God has been our leader; calculation after calculation has failed, and plan after plan has been overthrown, and our prophet seemed not to know the event till too late. If he said go up and prosper, still we did not prosper; but have labored and toiled, and waded through trials, difficulties, and temptations, of various kinds, in hope of deliverance. But no deliverance came. The promises failed, and time after time we have been disappointed; and still were commanded, in the most rigid manner, to follow him, which the church did, until many were led into the commission of crime; have been apprehended and broken down by their opponents, and many have been obliged to abandon their country, their families, and all they possessed, and great affliction has been brought upon the whole church. What shall we say to these things? Did not your prophet proclaim in your ears that the day was your own, and you should overcome; when in less than a week you were all made prisoners of war, and you would have been exterminated, had it not been for the exertions and influence of a few dissenters, and the humane and manly spirit of a certain officer?” (The “certain officer” was Alexander Doniphan who stepped in to stop Joseph’s summary execution after the Mormon War in 1838.)
What shall we say to these things? The historical record supports Corrill’s claims, so we can’t just ignore them (though most people I know certainly try). Kirtland was the culmination of years of trouble, so one can understand why the Kirtland Dissenters reached a boiling point and rebelled. The wounds, unfortunately, would never heal. With tensions high and Smith’s prophetic veneer irrevocably tarnished, Smith and Rigdon eventually fled to Far West in January 1838 under cover of night. For Joseph it was Groundhog Day. He arrived in Far West penniless and destitute. I can only wonder what Emma was thinking through all of this. Truly she must have had Job’s patience. Then again, she probably had no other choice.
SHOW ME THE MONEY
The move to Missouri did nothing to change Joseph’s financial woes. In May 1838, Smith and Rigdon,
“…presented their financial plight to the Far West High Council. Both leaders indicated that during the previous eight years they had spent their ‘time, talents and & properties in service of the church, and are now reduced as it were to absolute beggary, and still were detained in service to the church.’ They had now reached the point, they expressed, where ‘something should be done for their support…by the Church‘ or they must ‘do it themselves.'” (Rigdon, pp. 230-231.)
As I’ve been thinking about this particular issue the last couple of days, I realized that Joseph’s vision of the “Kingdom” was rooted as much in economics as it was religion, if not more so. (Maybe this is obvious to most readers.) There was no distinction, at least to Joseph, between the two. As such, he seemed to believe he was entitled to payment for his services as head of both temporal and spiritual matters. As I was proofing the final draft of this post, I came across the minutes of December 6, 1837 High Council meeting in Far West. A committee of Elias Higbee, Simeon Carter and Elisha Grove determined,
“We the undersigned committee chosen by the high council of Zion on this 6th day of December AD. 1837 to take into consideration the expediency of remunerating the Presidency and high council and also the bishop and his council for their services when employed in doing the business of the church of Latter day saints,— having met agreeably to appointment and after taking the aforesaid business into consideration it is our united opinion that the aforesaid officers togegher [together] with the clerk of the council the Patriarch and also the agent of the church (as also any other person who may be employed in the same or the like business) receive per day each one dollar and fifty cents.”
I don’t know if that renumeration ever went into effect. The presidency of Smith and Rigon had not yet arrived in Far West. At this same series of meetings, Bishop Partridge was recompensed $900 ($30,000) for expenses incurred in dealing with legal issues resulting from the Jackson County mobs and Oliver Cowdery, appointed “recorder of licenses and patriarchal blessings,” was given $10 ($335) per 100 documents recorded.
Back to the subject at hand, the Far West Council discussed Smith and Rigdon’s appeal and voted 11-1 to grant them each 80 acres of land and to contract with them for their services, thereby guaranteeing an income. The lone dissenting voice was George M. Hinkle, who staunchly opposed a “salaried ministry.” After further discussions, the Council offered Smith and Rigdon an annual salary of $1,100 ($37,000), three times the average worker’s salary in 1838. However, Ebenezer Robinson noted,
“…when it was noised abroad that the Council had taken such a step, the members of the Church, almost to a man, lifted their voices against it. The expression of disapprobation was so strong and emphatic that at the next meeting of the High Council, the resolution voting them a salary was rescinded.”
They were right to protest it and the council was right to rescind it. It was all for not in the end because the Saints were expelled from Missouri later that same year, and with the migration to Nauvoo, Joseph lost his 80 acres of land. After the failure of his businesses, the failure of the Salem revelation and its alleged treasure, the failure of the KSS, the revocation of his salary and the ever-present debt problem, Joseph had another card to play. Smith and Rigdon, true to the threat, did it themselves.
Behold, the tithe man cometh.
TITHING
While the tithing revelation was officially given in July 1838, it had been in the planning stages since 1837. (This is a very tricky subject, and I don’t know that I have everything here exactly correct.) Bishop Whitney, along with councilors, addressed the church in a letter. It’s lengthy, but I believe it’s important to review it because it gives us some insight into what Joseph intended when he wrote the tithing revelation. Whitney wrote,
“It is a fact well known that the Saints in the city of Kirtland have been called to endure great affliction for the truth’s sake, and to bear a heavy burden in order that the foundation of the kingdom of God might be laid on a sure and certain basis, so that the prophetic vision of Daniel might most certainly be fulfilled, that this kingdom might break in pieces all other kingdoms and stand for ever. The exertions of the enemy to prevent this have been very great; and through their great exertions they have given to the Saints great trouble, and caused them much expense. In addition to this, they have had to publish the word of the Lord, which has been attended with great expense.”
This is obviously a reference to the Doctrine and Covenants. Did the Saints not already have the “word of the Lord” in the Book of Mormon? There was no pressing need to print the D&C, especially considering it didn’t and the unsold copies eventually went up in smoke. Whitney continues,
“These things, together with building the House of the Lord (the Kirtland Temple which significantly added to the debt), have embarrassed them very much; for when subscriptions failed they went on and accomplished the work of building the house themselves, plighting all that they had, property, credit, and reputation, and by these means accomplished this great work which is the wonder and admiration of the world. (Was it?) This they have done in faith, believing that, as the multitude of Saints increased, their liberality would abound towards those who, regarding nothing but the salvation of the world, have thus exposed themselves to financial ruin in order that the work of the gathering might not fail. And besides all this there have been a large number of poor who have had to receive assistance from the donations of the Church, which have tended to increase its embarrassments; and now so numerous are the Saints grown that it is impracticable for them all to gather to the places which are now appointed for this purpose.
The Church at Kirtland has, therefore, required at the hand of our beloved brethren, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Sidney Rigdon, men who have not thought their lives dear unto them in order that the cause of God might be established, presidents whom God has appointed to preside over the whole Church, and the persons to whom this work belongs (is it their work or God’s work?) that they should go forth and lay off other stakes of Zion, or places of gathering, so that the poor may have a place of refuge, or places of refuge, in the day of tribulation which is coming swiftly on the earth.”
It’s been 187 years since he wrote this.
“All these things will be attended with expense. Feeling ourselves under great responsibility by virtue of our office and calling in the Church of God, we present this our memorial (a written representation of the facts accompanied by a petition) to all the Saints, making a most solemn appeal to the feelings, benevolence and philanthropy of all the Saints into whose hands this our memorial comes, in faith and confidence that this appeal will not be made in vain.
It is the fixed purpose of our God and has been so from the beginning as appears by the testimony of the ancient Prophets, that the great work of the last days was to be accomplished by the tithing of His Saints. (is it?) The Saints were required to bring their tithes into the store house, and after that, not before, they were to look for a blessing that there should not be room enough to receive it. (See Malachi 3rd chapter, 10th verse).”
The “tithes and offerings” of Malachi 3:10 were agricultural (livestock and food), not financial or personal property. I don’t know how agricultural tithes and offerings could accomplish the great work of the Lord.
“Our appeal, then, to the Saints is founded on the best of testimony, that which no Saint will feel to gainsay, but rejoice to obey. The Saints of God will rejoice in all that the Lord does, and in doing all that the Lord requires. The sacrifice of righteousness which the Lord requires will be offered with a willing heart and ready mind, and with great joy, because they are accounted worthy to offer up sacrifice for His name.
“In making this appeal to the benevolence of the Saints of God (flattery) we do not only take into consideration the situation of the poor, the embarrassments of the stake of Kirtland, but also their own interests, for every Saint has an equal interest in building up the Zion of our God, for it is after the Lord has built up Zion that He will appear in His glory (Psalm 102:16). We all look for the appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, but we shall look in vain until Zion is built, for Zion is to be the dwelling place of our God when He comes (Joel 3:21). Anyone who will read this chapter with attention will see that it treats of the last days, and of the Zion of the last days.”
Williams, like many others, misinterprets Psalm 102:61, though it’s not his fault. The KJV reads “When the LORD shall build up Zion, he shall appear in his glory.” Modern translations correctly render it, “For the LORD builds up Zion; he appears in his glory.” Psalm 102 is a personal plea from the Psalmist that “begs for the healing that will win for the Lord the praise of the nations.” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version, p. 904). It’s not the Second Coming. Whitney doesn’t fare any better with Joel 3:21. “The LORD dwells in Zion” is a reference to the heavenly Jerusalem, not the material and certainly not Missouri. “Zion,” while sometimes used synonymously with Jerusalem, is not a location on a map that you can visit. It is much grander than that. It is the cosmic mountain, the mythical place often associated with Mt. Moriah where God dwells and from where He issues His decrees. It is the navel of the world, the place of creation, the place where gods battle. (Numerous cultures have a version of the “cosmic mountain.”) It is the figurative meeting place of heaven and earth. So, the premise of using “tithing” to establish “Zion” is built on the faulty assumption that Missouri is the “Zion” mentioned by the Hebrew prophets. It’s not.
“How, then, is the Lord to dwell in Zion if Zion be not built up? This question we leave the Saints to answer. The salvation of the Saints one and all depends on the building up of Zion, for without this there is no salvation, for deliverance in the last days is found in Zion and in Jerusalem, and in the remnant whom the Lord our God shall call, or in other words, in the stakes which He shall appoint (Joel 2:32). It is in Zion where the Lord is to create upon every dwelling place and upon her assemblies a cloud of smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night. It is upon the glory of Zion that there will be a defense. It is in Zion that there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the day time from the heat, and for a place of refuge and for a covert from storm and from rain (Isaiah 4:5-6). It is upon the walls of Zion where the watchmen shall see eye to eye (Isaiah 3:8).
Whatever is glorious, whatever is desirable, whatever pertains to salvation, either temporal or spiritual, our hopes, our expectations, our glory, and our reward, all depend on our building up Zion according to the testimony of the Prophets, for unless Zion is built our hopes perish, our expectations fail, our prospects are blasted, our salvation withers, and God will come and smite the whole earth with a curse.”
Zion failed. Are they, and we, all consequently damned? Did God smite the earth with a curse?
“Hear, then, O ye Saints of the last days! And let this our appeal have a favorable reception among you. Let every Saint consider well the nature of his calling in the last days, and the great responsibility which rests upon him or her, as one to whom God has revealed His will; and make haste not only to the relief of Kirtland, but also to the building up of Zion. Let every man and every woman give heed the very instant that they embrace the Gospel, and exert themselves with energy to send on means to build up Zion, for our God bids us to hasten the building of the city, saying the time has come when the city must be pushed forward with unceasing exertions, for behold, the day of calamity draweth nigh, and unless the Saints hasten the building of the city they will not escape.”
The Saints were mostly fine despite temporal Zion not being built. The day of burning and wrath never came. After Whitney’s appeal, a committee Edward Partridge, Isaac Morely and John Corrill offered a proposal,
“We the undersigned a committee appointed yesterday by a general council in the Land of Zion for the purpose of adopting a plan wherby the church of Latter Day Saints may voluntarily raise means by tighing themselves to be a fund ready at all times to assist the poor with. . . and also to compensate the Servents of the Lord for their services in attending to the business of the church.— and for other necessary purposes. Having investigated the subject as fully as the time would permit, making the following report. First. We believe that a voluntary free will offring from year to year will not only be pleasing in The sight of the Lord but will be in some degree fullfilling the law of consecration.—
Secondly: We believe that a per centage on what a man is worth, is a more equal mode of raising funds than the tithing of what a man raises or his income from year to year; Thirdly. We believe that widows generally and all other families not worth over seventy five dollars each. should not be required to tithe themselves and yet retain an honorable standing in the church. Resolved first; That it is expedient that every man renders an inventory to the Bishop Edward Partridge or his successor in office yearly of what he is worth after deducting his honest debts—Resolved secdondly. That about the commencement of evry year the high council together with the Bishop and his council shall agree upon; and make known to the church the amount of per centage necessary to be raised the following year. And that the same shall be paid over in the course of the following year, to the agent of the church John Corrill or his successor in office subject to the <order of> Bishop Edward Partridge or his successor in office: Resolved third: that every man in paying the amount of his donation should either deed the same by gift or sign the amount by upon a subscription paper like or similar to the one presented with this report…We have estimated that two cents upon the dollar for what every man shall be worth when he renders his inventory to the Bishop will raise a sum suffcient for the A.D. 1838.”
If the Church had to have a tithing plan, this seems reasonable. You’ll notice the tithing was 2% of a man’s worth (not income) after deducting his debts and the poor weren’t required to tithe at all. In fairness, this isn’t all that different form the system Alma implemented at the Waters of Mormon. The exception, of course, is paying the servants of the Lord for the time doing church business. Perhaps most importantly, tithing was based on the needs of the church for that year and it was to be reevaluated every year.
This is the backdrop to tithing. Let’s turn our attention to the July 1838 revelation and see what changes Joseph Smith made,
“Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their property to be put into the hands of the bishop (Edward Partridge) of my church in Zion (Missouri). For the building of mine , and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church. And this shall be the beginning of the of my people.”
You’ll notice at the beginning tithing is defined as “surplus property.” So, if you have not given your surplus property to the bishop, you haven’t paid tithing. It is, of course, impractical in this day and age, but I’m not aware of any canonized revelation voted on and affirmed by the church that changes the definition of tithing. We are also given the four main expressed purposes for tithing: 1) The Far West Temple. On April 26, 1838, Joseph produced a revelation mandating the Saints “ a house unto me, for the gathering together of my saints, that they may me.” Joseph was still in debt from the Kirtland Chapel/Temple and obviously wanted to avoid adding to it. The cornerstone for the Far West Temple laid three days before the tithing revelation was given; 2) Laying the foundation of Zion (Missouri). I suspect Joseph anticipated the Saints permanently dwelling in Far West, but they were expelled from Missouri later that year; 3) For the Priesthood. I believe this is a reference to the Levite priests who were supported by agricultural tithes and offerings in ancient Israel as part of Mosaic Law. Here it appears to be for the support of church leaders. 4) Joesph Smith and Sidney Rigdon’s debts, which have since been resolved and/or forgotten. The revelation continues,
“And after that, those who have thus been shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord. Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of (Missouri) shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law (payment), or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.”
The way this portion reads suggests to me that tithing is strictly “surplus property.” One-tenth of one’s annual interest may technically be “tithing,” but sounds more like a membership fee used to pay/support Church officers, or as the revelations says, “for my holy priesthood.” (By way of reminder, there was no “priesthood” in the Church until July 1831.) The revelation may be poorly or awkwardly dictated/written, but “payment” on one’s interest seems to be distinct from “tithing.”
“And I say unto you, if my people observe not this law (payment?), to keep it holy, and by this law sanctify the land of Zion (Missouri) unto me, that my statutes and my judgments may be kept thereon, that it may be most holy, behold, verily I say unto you, it shall not be a land of unto you. And this shall be an ensample unto all the of Zion. Even so. Amen.”
Here’s the issue with this revelation as I see it. Three of the four reasons given for the implementation of tithing are no longer applicable. The Far West Temple was never completed. The Saints were permanently expelled from Missouri in 1838. Joseph and Sidney’s debts are ancient history. Further, the tithing revelation isn’t enforced as recorded since no one is expected to donate their surplus property upon joining a stake of Zion, or after for that matter. I guess one could argue that tithing can be used to support church leadership (“the priesthood”). There’s a lot of consternation among post-LDS believers about LDS church leaders being paid, or receiving the euphemistic “living allowance,” but it’s literally written into the revelation and the practice dates back to 1837. Blame Joseph Smith.
We’re going to focus Smith and Rigdon’s debts. The tithing revelation was given on July 8, 1838. The timing isn’t accidental. The Joseph Smith Papers (JSP) editors write,
“…In April a revelation called for Far West, Missouri, to be built up as a city of Zion with a temple but directed the presidency not to go into debt to build the Far West temple as they had when building the Kirtland temple. The issue of JS’s and Rigdon’s debts was raised again in May when the two petitioned the high council to obtain compensation for their services in the church. Debts continued to loom over JS and Rigdon, and on 8 July 1838 the first payment on a debt totaling over $4,000 ($133,000) was due to JS’s attorneys. That day, JS dictated this revelation on tithing—apparently in a church leadership meeting held in Far West.”
Brigham Young and others were then dispatched to collect the Saints’ surplus property. Steven C. Harper writes,
“Joseph Smith’s journal notes that the newly revealed council soon met in Far West to ‘take into consideration, the disposing of the publick properties in the hands of the Bishop, in Zion (Missouri), for the people of Zion (Missouri) have commenced liberally to consecrate agreeably to the revelations, and commandments.’ The council agreed that the members of the First Presidency should use the funds they needed ‘and the remainder be put into the hands of the Bishop or Bishops, agreeably to the commandments, and revelations.'”
Priority was given to Joseph and Sidney. Not House of the Lord. Not the poor. Joseph and Sidney. Being prophet is a good gig if you can get it.
Joseph obviously had big plans for Far West and his vision of Zion. The Saints had begun buying land in Caldwell County in 1836. A temple cornerstone was laid. But tensions between the Saints and the dissenters remained. In June 1838 Sidney Rigdon delivered his infamous “Salt Sermon,” effectively threating dissenters to leave Caldwell County. Shortly thereafter, Samson Avard formed the Danites and some 80 Saints, including Hyrum Smith, signed the “Danite Manifesto.” The Mormon War of 1838 eventually resulted in the final expulsion from Missouri. After Joseph was allowed to escape custody on April 16, 1839, he made his way 140 miles straight north to Quincy, Illinois. The Saints eventually settled in swampy Commerce, Illinois, renamed it Nauvoo, and Joseph, who apparently hadn’t yet learned his lesson, summoned his beleaguered followers to their new promised land and renewed his attempts at establishing a theocratic empire.
THE NAUVOO LAND BUSINESS
Most of the information in this section comes from Robert Bruce Flanders’ book, Nauvoo: Kingdom of the Mississippi. The book was written in 1965 and has since somewhat fallen out of favor because it was reliant on questionable church sources. However, the chapters on land and commerce have been praised, and it’s from those chapters I’ll draw. I highly recommend reading chapter five, “A Kingdom of the World: The Land Business.” (The entire book can be read for free via archive.org.)
One can only imagine the trepidation some of the Saints felt at the prospect of starting from scratch. Flanders writes,
“Many debts incurred at Kirtland before 1838 still remained unpaid, and the temple there was mortgaged. In Nauvoo the unhappy Kirtland experience with its bankruptcies and recriminations seemed long ago and far away; but the outstanding notes of the Church persisted, to the annoyance of the brethren engaged in the building of another city with its own complex debts. ” (p. 164)
Nevertheless, shortly after arriving in Commerce, the Saints entered an agreement to purchase 135 acres from Hugh White for $5,000 ($168,000) and 47 acres from Isaac Galland for $9,000 ($302,000). Part of the buying committee wanted the purchases deeded to Alanson Ripley, who acted as agent for the committee who in turn was acting on the behalf of the church. Rigdon objected, allegedly stating, “no committee should control any property he had anything to do with.” Consequently, the deeds were made to Rigdon’s son-in-law, George Robinson “with the express understanding that he should deed it to the church, when the Church had paid for it according to their obligations in the contract.” A month earlier, “Robinson had taken an option on the same Galland property, plus ferry rights and additional parcels of land, to buy at $18,000 ($585,000).” (p. 35)
Later, the Church purchased land on Iowa side of the Mississippi. Between May 13 and June 26, Galland sold additional tracts of 2,638 acres and 12,745 acres to agents of the church for the sum of $6,000 ($195,000) and $32,342 ($1.05 million) respectively. Joseph, having learned how easy it was to buy on credit, continued his land acquisition spree. In June he bought five hundred acres from Hotchkiss and Gillet, meaning the Church owned all but 125 acres of the peninsula. As more gathered to Nauvoo, the need for more land was a pressing need. In July Joseph informed the Saints,
“God has told us to flee, not dallying, or we shall be scattered, one here, and another there. There your children shall be blessed, and you in the midst of friends where you may be blessed. The Gospel net gathers of every kind…I prophesy, that that man who tarries after he has an opportunity of going, will be afflicted by the devil. Wars are at hand; we must not delay; but are not required to sacrifice. We ought to have the building up of Zion as our greatest object. When wars come, we shall have to flee to Zion. The cry is to make haste. The last revelation says, Ye shall not have time to have gone over the earth, until these things come. It will come as did the cholera, war, fires, and earthquakes; one pestilence after another, until the Ancient of Days comes, then judgment will be given to the Saints.” (It bears repeating, this was 185 years ago. The wars, fires and earthquakes never came. The wicked were never wiped off the face of the earth. The Ancient of Days, who is God not “Adam,” never showed up.)
Gathering in haste was a bad idea informed by Joseph’s mistaken belief in the imminent end. Many coming to Nauvoo by way of Quincy were sick and a number had even died. Bishop Partridge, overseeing events in Quincy, wrote to Joseph, “What is best to do for them? I do not know.” Partridge himself lamented he had only $1.44 ($47) to his name. The majority of British converts who began in arrived a couple of years later were likewise poor and unskilled.
At the October conference Joseph again approached the debt situation,
“We therefore hope that the brethren, who feel interested in the cause of truth, and desire to see the work of the gathering of Israel (they were Gentiles) roll forth with power will aid us in liquidating the debts which are now owing, so that the inheritances may be secured to the church, and which eventually will be of great value.”
Eventually, it was decided that the debt would be resolved by the sale of lots acquired by the church. Flanders writes,
“The church did not envision any real separation of powers between the spiritual and temporal executives. As the volume of business and the press of financial matters increased, a move was made to regularize the church’s business affairs. The course to be taken was obvious: on October 20, 1839, the Nauvoo High Council made Joseph Smith the treasurer of the church, empowered to set prices and to sell lots as well as the discharge other business functions…The council suggested that lots average $500 ($16,000) each with none to sell for less than $200 ($6,700) nor more than $800 ($26,900).
To comply with state law respecting the business transactions of religious corporations Smith was elected Trustee-in-Trust…on January 30, 1841. Smith used the office to combine corporate and personal affairs in an intricate manner never entirely unraveled before his death…He sold city lots to whomever he could and at good prices if the buyer had means. Despite the proposed $800 ceiling, $1,000 ($33,500) was asked and obtained for many unimproved one-acre lots…Smith was also willing to compromise the city plan by selling fractions of lots, either because of demand for them or in hopes of increasing per acre value.”
As trustee, Joseph transferred property from his own name to that of the Church. According to the Church, “neither Joseph, other Church leaders, nor their legal counselors appear to have understood that also according to law, churches in Illinois could not own more than five acres of land.”
“The Prophet continued to purchase land. In October 1840, he bought eighty acres of farmland twelve miles south of the city for $2,000 ($67,100); In March 1842, he offered $2,000 ($67,100) for twenty acres in Nauvoo yet unowned by the Church. In March 1841, he purchased from his secretary, Robert Thompson, fifty lots in Nauvoo for $10,000 ($335,800). The following July, Thompson sold Emma Smith 123 acres in the south edge of Nauvoo for $4,000 ($134,300). Mrs. Smith might have been proxy or agent for her husband in this transaction. To what extent Smith was acting as a private entrepreneur in these purchases it is impossible to know. At least at first he considered his fortunes intimately connected with those of the Church. The office of Trustee was only a necessary legal convention.” (Nauvoo, p. 119-120.)
Eventually the demands of the land business weighed Smith down. In June 1840 he asked the High Council to relieve of his duties as land agent, but instead of rescinding duties, the council gave him another salesman. Flanders writes,
“As Smith had been supporting himself in whole or part by the profits taken in the land business (he was given authority to deed himself properties), he asked the High Council to provide other renumeration if he were to be divested of that income. The Mormon convention respecting pay for the ministry is that there should be none, as each minister was expected to support himself. The case of the Prophet was different since presumably he engaged his full time in the service of the Church. But the provisions for his emoluments were irregular and haphazard. The resulting situation made for inevitable conflicts of interest; he and other Church authorities were tempted or even forced on occasion to seek profit from their high positions, both as spiritual leaders and directors of various economic enterprises. The High Council of Nauvoo agreed with the Prophet that sources of support for him other than the profits taken from the land sales should be found.” (Nauvoo, p. 123)
The High Council then resolved that profits from the land sales should be used to pay down the debt and the “Bishops be instructed to raise funds from other sources.” Despite this, Joseph—and Hyrum—were never fully able to extricate themselves from the land business. Hyrum Smith purchased forty acres from Robert Thompson in January 1840 for $3,100 ($111,200) which he platted and offered for sale. Brigham Young, too, got involved. Before leaving for England, he took out a notice informing potential buyers he had land he would “sell very cheap.” The land speculation didn’t sit well with many of the Saints, but as Flanders notes, Nauvoo itself was a speculation, both temporally and spiritually. Indeed, there’s never been any meaningful distinction between the things of the world and the things of God in the Mormon tradition. For example, on December 16, 1843, a notice written by William Clayton appeared in the Nauvoo Neighbor instructing immigrants to Nauvoo that if they,
“…buy their lands of the trustee in trust they will thereby benefit the poor, the temple, and the Nauvoo House (Joseph’s residence), and even then only will be doing that which is their duty…Let all the brethren, therefore, when they move to Nauvoo, consult President Joseph Smith, the trustee in trust, and purchase lands of him; and I am bold to say God will bless them.”
It’s hard not to see spiritual manipulation in Clayton’s directive. Flanders adds,
“Joseph Smith’s position as Prophet, director of public enterprises, and private entrepreneur made him liable to charges that he enriched himself at the expense of his followers. But he seemed oblivious of any ‘conflict of interests’; he repeated that his affairs and those of the Church were inseparable, an untenable position for the Trustee-in-Trust of the corporation to take. Smith’s business activities typified the Mormon mixture of public and private enterprise. He had been accorded the right to deed Church property to himself and his relatives by the October1839, Conference. He was to take such property ‘as in his wisdom he shall judge expedient, till his own, and his father’s household, shall have an inheritance secured to them in our midst….’ The Twelve resolved in August, 1841, ‘that we for ourselves, and the Church we represent, approve of the proceedings of President Smith, so far as he has gone, in making over certain properties to his wife, children, and friends for their support, and that he continue . . . agreeably to the vote of the General Conference … in October, 1839.” The Prophet benefited from other emoluments and gifts from time to time. In 1841 the Twelve, arranging the finances of the new five-thousand-copy English edition of the Book of Mormon, resolved that ‘said committee settle the financial or business matters thereof with Joseph Smith, to whom the profits rightly belong.’ When Smith was acquitted in January, 1843, from the attempts of Missouri to extradite him, the Twelve commended ‘to the consideration of the brethren the situation of our President, who has long had his business affairs deranged, and has been..obliged to expend large sums of money in procuring his release from unjust persecution, leaving him destitute of the necessaries…We therefore recommend that collections be taken at the various meetings for his benefit…provisions will be an excellent substitute…for the laborer is worthy of his hire.’ The city council acted that same month to pay Smith $500 annually as mayor, and $3 a day when he sat as justice of the Municipal Court. The Twelve continued to be solicitous of the Prophet’s welfare. In January 1844, they invited the brethren to cut wood for him. According to Young two hundred loads were cut and a hundred hauled to his Nauvoo Mansion hotel.” (Nauvoo, 159-160)
In recent years there’s been a lot of handwringing and complaining about the Church’s vast land holdings, businesses and wealth, which reportedly surpass $100 billion. For those emotionally invested in Joseph Smith the Prophet, this is evidence that the Church has apostatized from the church he established. History, however, shows that it all began with Joseph Smith. I’m fairly certain that if Joseph rose from the dead and saw the Church’s vast and immeasurable wealth, he’d be ecstatic. This is exactly the “kingdom” he envisioned.
CHARGING FOR BLESSINGS
According to the recently deceased D. Michael Quinn,
“‘Both the Presiding Patriarch and local stake patriarchs charged a fee. In the 1840s the fee was $1 per patriarchal blessing at Nauvoo; by the end of the nineteenth century it had increased to $2 per blessing. Joseph Smith Sr. gave patriarchal blessings without payment of a fee, but would not record them. ‘Uncle’ John Smith commented that he “lived very poor ever since we left Kirtland Ohio” (from January 1838 until January 1844). Then his nephew, Joseph Smith, ordained him a patriarch ‘through which office I obtained a comfortable living.’…Patriarchal blessing fees ended in 1902, although patriarchs were allowed to accept unsolicited donations. Not until 1943 did church authorities prohibit patriarchs from accepting gratuities for giving blessings.”
I don’t know even know what to say, I we’ll just move along.
THE NAUVOO HOUSE
When Joseph arrived in Kirtland back in 1831, he wrote a revelation requiring the Saints to build him a house. In 1836, he wrote another revelation requiring the Saints to construct a building for the First Presidency (which was never completed.) In January 1841, he wrote a revelation, later canonized as D&C 124, requiring the Saints to build a boarding house/hotel in which he and his posterity were granted perpetual residence. The revelation begins with the made to “make a solemn of my gospel” to “to all the of the world, to the four corners thereof, to the honorable president-elect, and the high-minded governors of the nation in which you live, and to all the nations of the earth scattered abroad….For, behold, I am about to call upon them to give heed to the light and glory of Zion, for the set time has come to favor her.” (This was 183 years ago.) The letter was to instruct the kings of the earth to “Awake!” and “Come ye, O, come ye, with your and your silver, to the help of my people, to the house of the daughters of Zion.”
This might reference the temple, or it could be a reference to Nauvoo and the Saints as “the house of the daughters of Zion.” Again, the Saints were Gentiles, not the “daughters of Zion.” Joseph Smith had three and a half years to write this letter, but he never did. If it was the “set time” to favor Zion, why didn’t he? I don’t know. (Robert B. Thompson, who was supposed to help Joseph with the letter, passed in October 1840, so that may have played a part.) It wasn’t until 1845 that Parley P. Pratt wrote The Apostles Proclamation (which also declares Jesus’ imminent return) to all the kings of the earth. The revelation then addresses the Nauvoo House,
“Let my servant George, and my servant Lyman, and my servant John Snider, and others, build a unto my name, such a one as my servant Joseph shall show unto them, upon the place which he shall show unto them also. And it shall be for a house for boarding, a house that strangers may come from afar to lodge therein; therefore let it be a good house, worthy of all acceptation, that the weary may find health and safety while he shall contemplate the word of the Lord; and the I have appointed for Zion. This house shall be a healthful habitation (a phrase that seems to be borrowed from the Roman playwright, Horace) if it be built unto my name, and if the governor which shall be appointed unto it shall not suffer any pollution to come upon it. It shall be holy, or the Lord your God will not therein.” (v. 22-24)
“And now I say unto you, as pertaining to my boarding house which I have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, let it be built unto my name, and let my name be named upon it, and let my servant Joseph and his house have place therein, from generation to generation. For this anointing have I put upon his head, that his blessing shall also be put upon the head of his posterity after him. And as I said unto concerning the kindreds of the earth, even so I say unto my servant Joseph: In thee and in thy shall the kindred of the earth be blessed. Therefore, let my servant Joseph and his seed after him have place in that house, from generation to generation, forever and ever, saith the Lord. And let the name of that house be called House.” (v. 56-60)
Why this Abrahamic blessing grants the Smith family generational housing is anyone’s guess. The Nauvoo House would, at long last, not only grant the Smith family permanent and generational security, but it would also provide a steady stream of income. How would the Saints pay for the Nauvoo House, originally designed as an L-shaped, three-story building? Another investment scheme.
“Behold, verily I say unto you, let my servant George Miller, and my servant Lyman Wight, and my servant John Snider, and my servant Peter Haws, organize themselves, and appoint one of them to be a president over their quorum for the purpose of building that house. And they shall form a constitution, whereby they may receive stock for the building of that house. And they shall not receive less than fifty dollars for a share of stock in that house, and they shall be permitted to receive fifteen thousand dollars ($538,000) from any one man for stock in that house…And if any pay stock into their hands it shall be for stock in that house, for himself, and for his generation after him, from generation to generation, so long as he and his heirs shall hold that stock, and do not sell or convey the stock away out of their hands by their own free will and act, if you will do my will, saith the Lord your God…
And again, verily I say unto you, if my servant George Miller, and my servant Lyman Wight, and my servant John Snider, and my servant Peter Haws, receive any stock into their hands, in moneys, or in properties wherein they receive the real value of moneys, they shall not appropriate any portion of that stock to any other purpose, only in that house. And if they do appropriate any portion of that stock anywhere else, only in that house, without the consent of the stockholder, and do not repay four-fold for the stock which they appropriate anywhere else, only in that house, they shall be accursed, and shall be moved out of their place, saith the Lord God; for I, the Lord, am God, and cannot be in any of these things. Verily I say unto you, let my servant Joseph pay stock into their hands for the building of that house, as seemeth him good; but my servant Joseph cannot pay over fifteen thousand dollars stock in that house, nor under fifty dollars; neither can any other man, saith the Lord.”
To my knowledge, there are no records of how much, or even if, Joseph Smith personally invested in the Nauvoo House, though apparently, he donated the land (that he likely deeded to himself). The revelation mentions several individuals by name with the instruction to invest: Vinson Knight, Hyrum Smith, Isaac Galland, William Marks, Henry Sherwood, William Law and Robert D. Foster. Constuction began in the spring of 1841, but the Nauvoo House was never completed. After the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum, the property fell to Emma and her second husband, Lewis Bidamon. The RLDS church purchased the property 1909. The SLC church acquired it from the Community of Christ in March of this year as part of a $192.5 million acquisition of property and artifacts.
An interesting side note to the Nauvoo House is that on December 12, 1843, the city council in Nauvoo announced,
“Be it ordained by the City Council of Nauvoo, that the Mayor of the city (Joseph Smith) be and is hereby authorized to sell or give spirits (alcohol) of any quantity as he in his wisdom shall judge to be for the health and comfort, or convenience of such travelers or other persons as shall visit his house from time to time.”
At a time when Church was promoting adherence the Word of Wisdom (it was never presented as a commandment or mandate), Joseph not only obtained permission to sell alcohol, but he was also a casual imbiber. There are at least six references to Joseph drinking wine or beer recorded in History of the Church. Further, on March 7, 1843, Theodore Turley approached Joseph about opening a brewery in Nauvoo. Three days later, Joseph decided “he had no objection.” Religion, it seems, took a backseat to commerce. As Josiah Quincy noted,
“It is well known that Joseph Smith was accustomed to make his revelations point to those sturdy business habits which lead to prosperity in this present life…No association with the sacred phrases of scripture could keep the inspirations of this man from getting down upon the hard pan of practical affairs. ‘Verily I say unto you, let my servant, Sidney Gilbert, plant himself in this place and establish a store.’ So had run one of his revelations, in which no holier spirit than that of commerce is discernible.”
Joseph also gave Quincy an escort to the Nauvoo temple. He wrote,
“The Mormon Temple was not fully completed. It was a wonderful structure, altogether indescribable by me. Being, presumably, like something Smith had seen in a vision, it certainly cannot be compared to any ecclesiastical building which may be discerned by the natural eyesight. It was built of limestone, and was partially supported by huge monolithic pillars, each costing, said the prophet, three thousand dollars ($126,000). Then in the basement was the baptistery, which centered in a mighty tank, surrounded by twelve wooden oxen of colossal size. These animals, we were assured, were temporary. They were to be replaced by stone oxen as fast as they could be made. The Temple, odd and striking as it was, produced no effect that was commensurate with its cost.”
BANKRUPTCY
Despite the revelations, ambitions, and economic endeavors, Joseph couldn’t escape the inevitable. The Joseph Smith Papers editors write, “In spring 1842, JS decided to apply for bankruptcy, under a new act created by the United States Congress to help individuals burdened by debts.” The financial panics of the late 1830s left many people unable to meet their financial obligations. To that end, “in August 1841 the United States Congress, led by members of the Whig Party, introduced a new bankruptcy act that allowed voluntary bankruptcy. For the first time in American history, any individual could apply for bankruptcy for personal or business debts.” 1,500 people in Illinois alone, including many Latter-Day Saints, applied. The JSP editors add,
“JS saw [bankrupty] as his last resort given his difficult financial situation in 1842. JS was burdened with considerable debts related to business ventures and church construction efforts in Ohio, particularly those involving the Kirtland temple. The Ohio mercantile firms of Cahoon, Carter & Co. and Rigdon, Smith & Co. had significant unpaid debts, and JS had taken financial responsibility for both firms’ debts. The Saints’ expulsion from Missouri also caused significant losses and led to costly land purchases in Illinois and Iowa in 1839 to provide homes for the refugee Saints. Several weeks after filing his bankruptcy application, JS wrote to his largest creditor, Horace Hotchkiss, explaining the pressure of unpaid debts that weighed on him and the ‘disadvantageous circumstances’ he and other church leaders had experienced in trying to purchase land for the Saints in 1839.”
Marvin S. Hill tallied Joseph’s financial obligations as of 1843,
“$46,500 ($1.9 million) in mortgages or indebtedness or land, $28,500 ($1.2 million) in notes largely for wholesale merchandise for resale by Kirtland’s several mercantile firms, and $4,200 ($175,000) in loans from banks incurred at the start of the Kirtland Bank. These debts total $79,200 ($3.3 million). In addition, there are the remaining $16,700 ($696,000) on the 1843 list which we have been unable to independently verify, and there were smaller transactions in land for which no notes or court action have been found to indicate whether they were for cash or credit. It is likely that some of these ‘purchases’ were on credit and some for cash. If we assume all were on credit and add the remaining debts on the 1843 list, we likely have a reasonably good estimate of the maximum debt which Joseph Smith may have incurred during this period. This adds $6,400 ($266,000) for land purchases plus $16,700 ($696,000) from the 1843 list, for a total ‘probable’ debt of $102,300 ($4.2 million). This amount includes twenty-six obligations totaling $46,000 ($1.91 million)…”
Enter John C. Bennett. Bennett, by any measure, was a scoundrel and a fraud who managed to wiggle his way into Joseph’s good graces. (Joseph wasn’t a very good judge of character. That’s not a character flaw.) After a short stint with the Mormons, Bennett was excommunicated in 1842 for adultery, but he did not go quietly into that good night. He spent the next several years attempting to dirty the names of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, including the publication of a salacious “exposé” titled of A History of the Saints. Given his proximity to Joseph (he was mayor of Nauvoo for four and half months), Bennett had some insider knowledge of Mormonism’s inner workings. After Joseph filed for bankruptcy, Bennett,
“…wrote a letter to the editor of the Sangamo Journal including allegations that JS had fraudulently transferred land before filing for bankruptcy. This accusation came to the attention of Illinois district attorney Justin Butterfield, who had begun a lawsuit against JS to recover a debt owed the United States government for the steamboat Nauvoo, purchased in September 1840. Butterfield inquired of the Solicitor of the Treasury, Charles B. Penrose, whether he should investigate the claims raised by Bennett. Penrose instructed Butterfield to proceed.”
After arriving in Nauvoo and investigating Bennett’s claims, Butterfield wrote to Penrose,
“On the 8th day of Sept last I left Chicago for Nauvoo the place of residence of Joseph Smith & Hyrum Smith applicants for the benefit of the Bankrupt Act, in order to obtain the necessary evidence to oppose them as I informed you…Upon my arrival at Nauvoo I made a very full examination into the transfers of property made by Joseph Smith upon the eve of his application for the benefit of the said act, and I succeeded beyond my expectations; I found that after the passage of the Bankrupt Act, and after he had contracted the debt upon which the judg’t in favor of the United States was rendered against him, he made voluntary conveyances of real estate of an amount much more than sufficient to satisfy the said judgment to his wife and to his infant children and friends, without any consideration whatever; I found that all the statements made by Gen’l Bennett in relation to Joseph Smith’s fraudulent transfers of his property were true; and that there were several other fraudulent conveyances not mentioned by him…I shall be ready to establish such fraudulent acts on the part of Joseph Smith as will prevent his discharge.”
Negotiations between the Church and Butterfield began, but no formal agreement was ever reached. The JSP editors write,
“In spring 1843, Illinois District Court assignee Joel Catlin apparently began gathering JS’s property to be sold, anticipating JS’s bankruptcy would be approved. Despite these efforts to move forward with his bankruptcy proceedings, it does not appear JS’s petition for bankruptcy was ever formally approved by the court. Although JS hoped to resolve his outstanding debts through bankruptcy, accusations by Bennett (which were true) and the debt to the federal government (the Nauvoo steamboat) made that impossible. JS made every effort to pay those debts he could, but many were left unresolved at the time of his death, complicating the settlement of his affairs.”
Just over a year later Joseph and Hyrum were killed by a mob at Carthage, leaving the bankruptcy issue on Emma’s lap. The Church writes,
“In August 1844 Bishops Newell K. Whitney and George Miller were sustained as trustees-in-trust for the Church, and they soon began to sell land Joseph had held on behalf of the Church. Emma also made efforts to secure assets to protect her and her children against foreclosure. Confronting the many technicalities and claims surrounding Joseph Smith’s estate proved demanding for both Smith family members and Church leaders.
In 1850 a United States attorney sued to collect on the steamboat debt through the sale of land held by Joseph Smith’s estate. The attorney’s complaint claimed, as had Bennett many years earlier, that Joseph had conveyed land to the Church fraudulently. The judge, however, found no fraud. He cited instead the Illinois law restricting the number of acres of land a church could own, determining that most of the land Joseph held as an individual and as the Church’s trustee could be sold to satisfy the steamboat debt. The court ordered the sale of the land and appointed a special master to inspect the properties and deeds. Emma agreed to relinquish her claim as Joseph’s widow to a life estate in one-third of his land (meaning she could live on or rent the land but not sell it or pass it on to her children) in exchange for one-sixth of the proceeds of the land sale. A commissioner appointed by the judge held three auctions and oversaw the payment of claims in 1851 and 1852, which effectively concluded the settling of Joseph’s estate in Illinois. In Ohio and Iowa, estate matters continued into the 1860s.”
Could this all have been avoided is Joseph Smith had abided the original mandate not to get involved with temporal matters? Maybe. Maybe not. But I think it’s obvious that Joseph’s ambitions were misguided and most certainly not inspired by God. Joseph’s only original mandate was the translation of the Book of Mormon. But he, like many men, went beyond his calling, which is probably why almost endeavor failed and why all of his prophecies failed. Perhaps Joseph should’ve taken to heart the words of Alma the Younger,
“O that I were an angel, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might go forth and speak with the of God, with a voice to shake the earth, and cry repentance unto every people! Yea, I would declare unto every soul, as with the voice of thunder, repentance and the plan of redemption, that they should repent and unto our God, that there might not be more sorrow upon all the face of the earth. But behold, I am a man, and do sin in my wish; for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me. I ought not to harrow up in my desires the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their , whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their , whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction. Yea, and I know that good and evil have come before all men; he that knoweth not good from evil is ; but he that good and evil, to him it is given according to his desires, whether he desireth good or evil, life or death, joy or remorse of . Now, seeing that I know these things, why should I desire more than to the work to which I have been called? …I know that which the Lord hath commanded me, and I glory in it. I do of myself, but I glory in that which the Lord hath commanded me.” (Alma 29:1-6,9)
CONCLUSION
What shall we make of these things? Joseph Smith is a cautionary tale. He may have had good intentions, but his ambition and pursuits of worldly gain resulted in his downfall. (As bad as the money business was, the doctrines he taught are infinitely worse.) I know there are people who will read that and squirm or scoff. I understand. There is a segment of Mormonism, predominantly among the post-LDS believers, who have an unwavering belief in Joseph Smith. For these good folks, Mormonism didn’t fail because of Joseph Smith. In fact, he was an innocent victim of a Brighamite conspiracy to kill him and “hijack the restoration.” Yes, there are growing numbers of people who believe Brigham Young orchestrated Joseph Smith’s murder. According to the theory, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff killed Joseph and Hyrum in Carthage so the Twelve and their secret cabal could practice polygamy without Joseph and Hyrum’s pesky interference.
I try not to get involved in any debates on Joseph Smith these days. So great is the belief in this man that there is no contradiction or difficulty that can’t be blamed on Brigham Young. No document is free from Brighamite interference or revision, unless, of course, it conforms with what they believe in. Then it’s a valid representation of Joseph’s teachings. The Nauvoo Temple? It’s actually Brigham Young’s Masonic Temple and Joseph knew nothing about it. Why are there no records of Joseph Smith preaching or teaching from the Book of Mormon? Brigham Young destroyed them all. I’ve heard all of these excuses and more. A common mantra among these individuals is “I believe Joseph.” Why? Joseph Smith was not beyond failure or falling. One of his earliest revelations reads,
“Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord (the Book of Mormon), but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt . But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art called to the work; Except thou this, thou shalt be delivered up and become as other men, and have no more gift. (D&C 3, July 1828)
To these individuals who hold on to Joseph Smith as an infallible prophet in the face of all the contrary evidence I ask: why do you have a testimony of man? Why does the mandate to avoid “trusting in the arm of flesh” not apply to Joseph Smith? On what grounds do we accept a priori everything he said or “revealed” as truth? The uncomfortable truth is that almost all the problems within the church begin with Joseph, be it false revelations, false doctrines (such as proxy baptism), failed prophecies, misinterpretations of scripture, fifteen years of documented money mismanagement, and perhaps most egregiously, at least in my eyes, making declarations in the name of God when clearly God was not involved. Charles Francis Adams noted of is visit to Nauvoo a few weeks before Joseph’s death,
“There is a mixture of shrewdness and extravagant self-conceit, of knowledge and ignorance, of wisdom and folly in this whole system of this man that I am somewhat at a loss to find definitions for it…Such a man is a study not for himself, but as serving to show what turns the human mind will sometimes take. And herafter if I should live, I may compare the results of this delusion with the condition in which I saw it and its mountebank apostle.”
Looking back at the Mormon Experiment between the years of 1830-1844, I don’t think it could have ended any other way than it did. One can almost see the snowball rolling down the hill, growing larger with every turn until it eventually collided with a brick wall. There was no other end than Joseph’s death.
I’ve cited this passage before, but if one has read the Book of Mormon, we should’ve expected it. When Jesus came to Bountiful after His resurrection, He prophesied about the fate of the LDS Gentiles,
“At that day when the Gentiles shall against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and , and , and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.” (3 Nephi 16:10)
It happened exactly as He said it would. Despite the errors of our forebears, there is also hope for us.
“But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be among my people, O house of Israel.” (3 Nephi 16:13).
That’s you and me. At least I hope it’s you and me.
In short, be free of Joseph Smith. We can appreciate his work in bringing forth the Book of Mormon. We can admire him for his sincere desires to help the poor. For all his flaws, he definitely had his virtues. But he was a man, a poor miserable lump like the rest of us. I can assure you with 100% certainty that there’s not one thing he “revealed” or taught that’s required for your salvation. Not one. Nor is a teacher, prophet, or guru out there right now that can offer anything you don’t already have access to. You already have everything you need: faith in Christ. I believe all of you who stop by here have that. All He’s asked of us is faith, repentance, baptism of water and fire, love God and man and endure to the end. If we accept His words in the Book of Mormon as true, more or less than this established as doctrine comes from evil. It really is that simple.
POSTSCRIPT
As I was working on the Nauvoo portion, a new picture of Joseph Smith emerged. I had already concluded that he was not in his right mind by that time period. His behavior was not that of a rational man. I think there’s a reason for that. I had a couple of epiphanies that may explain Joseph’s decisions and behavior during his ministry. I’m going to write a postmortem on this series explaining what I mean. There are some clues peppered throughout this post. Maybe you’ll pick up on them. I’ll leave it at that for now. Look for it shortly, I hope.
ADDITIONAL READING ON THE KIRTLAND SAFETY SOCIETY
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/kirtland-safety-society?lang=eng
https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-did-the-kirtland-safety-society-fail
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Creation_of_the_Kirtland_Safety_Society
BOOK OF MORMONISM 
My friend and brother in Christ, Thanks for your research and sharing it with me.According to my personal research,I discovered that there is a huge difference between the book of Mormon teachings and Mormonism,so it would be wise to follow book of Mormon teachings rather than the so called Revelations found in D&C.David Whitmer’s Address to all believers explains it all. In Christ, James Mubiru, Uganda
LikeLike
I agree. The BOM and D&C are incompatible. One must choose between the two. I love David Whitmer’s pamphlet. I recommend everyone read it.
LikeLike
Very true.God bless your work In Christ, James Mubiru, Uganda
LikeLike
Thank you. And thanks for stopping by.
LikeLike
Excellent work again. I appreciate your effort and time spent.
The “Joseph was murdered by Brigham” crowd and the Joseph wasn’t a polygamist ideas led me to look into a great many things and arrive at an overall view similar to yours. I appreciate them giving me reason to look into things further, and I do believe they make stronger cases than I previously ever would have though possible. Currently I have no clear stance in my own head on the inside-job martyrdom stuff, and I lean towards Joseph not being a polygamist. But ultimately it is all tangential to what actually matters. It is very liberating to realize that.
That said, I still find the tangents very interesting and I read and study this history more than I ever thought I would want to, and I always look forward to more of your writings.
LikeLike
Thank you for taking the time to read it. It was a pretty lengthy. I was staunchly in the monogamy camp for a long time. Now, I don’t really care because it has zero bearing on my life. I am, however, inclined to believe that *something* was going on. When we look at Joseph’s power grab and increasing megalomania and totalitarianism, I don’t think it’s beyond reason he would try to go for the women. After all, money, power and sex tend to go hand in hand. And if JS was bipolar, or had narcissistic personality disorder (I’m 99% sure of the latter), risky sexual behavior–and justification via revelation–is a common symptom.
I know D&C 132 is a problematic revelation, but it existed in some form before JS died. The Nauvoo Expositor addressed the part about how the Lord “justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines.” So that doctrine was around in 1844. When JSIII asked Emma about his father having have multiple wives, Emma replied JS was never married to anyone but here. BUT, is it unreasonable that Emma would try to shield her children from what really happened? I think there’s a certain nobility in that.
Ultimately, no one will ever truly know what happened because none of us were there. People will just pick whatever side conforms with what they want to believe.
LikeLike
I’m essentially in the same place as you. It’s no skin off my back if he was a polygamist. The proven fake documents, shenanigans after he was dead, and other key items have me leaning the other way for now. The Expositor does not mention Abraham, Isaac or Moses at all. It does mention David and Solomon, but them being justified goes against what Joseph added to the Bible against their polygamy so… {shoulder shrug with fart noise}.
Like you said, “I don’t really care because it has zero bearing on my life”. The Book of Mormon teaches what I believe about God and salvation and even if it ends up being a fantastic fraud it still has what I believe in it.
Keep bringing the mind blowing facts and analysis though. It’s good entertainment.
LikeLike
Ah, yes. Thanks for the correction. There are definitely arguments to be made in favor of monogamy. And Joseph definitely has a history of writing things later in life that contradict he wrote early in life. The “second comforter” is a big one. In D&C 88 (1832) he writes, “Wherefore, I now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise; which other Comforter is the same that I promised unto my disciples, as is recorded in the testimony of John.” Yet, in Nauvoo, the “second comforter” became the personal appearance of Jesus Christ. The JSP editors try to explain it away by writing Joseph “clarified” what the “other comforter was.” But it can’t be both.
The dude was not right.
One hundred years from now people will still be arguing about polygamy and we’ll still not know with complete certainty either way. But, like I said, it only matters to those who are emotionally invested in JS a prophet or conman. I’d rather focus on different things.
Thanks for the comments!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I appreciate this presentation and it helps put in context the tribulations Joseph Smith experienced. He had the gift of translation. He was a visionary man. He was an instrument in God’s hands to do a great work.
But Joseph Smith was prideful. He lusted for power and money. This resulted in him pursuing initiatives and taking actions that cost him credibility and energized opposition.
There is much to learn from the life of Joseph Smith. He exhibits the grace of God in the Lord using weak people to accomplish great things. Smith also shows how “pride goeth before the fall”.
How much of the admonition I section 121 is directed to the prophet himself?
“when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.”
Thank you again for these insights.
LikeLike
Well put. I couldn’t agree more. The BOM warns the Gentiles about “secret combinations” getting above them. I have often wondered if that’s a warning to the Saints about church leadership–both in Kirtland/Missouri/Nauvoo and SLC. JS is very much a cautionary tale and a tragic figure. Despite all the monkey business, I’m remain somewhat sympathetic to the man. The persecution was real. The familial stresses were real. He lost a number of children and brothers. There was tremendous internal and external pressure. Some of it was self-imposed, but not all of it.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
LikeLike
Another excellent piece Matt. It’s hard to see the evidence any other way. Clearly, money was extremely important to Smith and his family. While reading through this series I keep asking myself, why is God so interested in such mundane things? The accumulation of wealth is so important to God that he’s continually giving revelation where Joseph is the beneficiary? It’s fraudulent. There is no other reasonable explanation. And what of all the other dodgy things Smith was accused of? It most certainly tips the scales away from he did no wrong and was framed by Brigham and his gang.
Thank you for sharing this. Looking forward to your next treatise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Greg. I think it will all tie together even more when I get to the post on JS’s belief in the imminent return of Christ. All of his revelations have to be read with the understanding that he believed this event was *right now.*
I try to avoid debates with those loyal to the Joseph Smith. (I’m not always successful!) There’s not much of a point in trying to persuade people. As the wise man said, you can’t reason someone out of a position or belief they didn’t arrive at through reason. When one expresses a belief in or testimony of Joseph Smith, he or she falls under the spell of JS’s presumed infallibility and there’s no need or reason to actually investigate or challenge what the man said. The Book of Abraham is a perfect example. Starting with the assumption that the BOA is “true,” one misses the fact JS presents Jehovah and Jesus as two distinct personages having a conversation, even though Jesus IS Jehovah. If I bring these issues up with those invested in the JS narrative, they literally cannot process it. It doesn’t compute.
One of the most mind-blowing experiences I’ve ever had was an online conversation about JS being the so-called “end-times servant” Isaiah allegedly references in chapters 40-55. I told this person that there’s no need to speculate on the end-time servant, because it’s clearly identified as Israel collectively. This person responded, “it doesn’t say Israel is the servant.” So, I cited a couple of passages:
“You, Israel, are My servant, Jacob whom I chose, the seed of Abraham My friend. (41:8)
“You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and “My servant whom I have chosen. (43:10-11)
“Yet hear now, O Jacob My servant and Israel, whom I chose…” (44:1)
The response? “The servant can’t be a people!” “You, Israel, are my Servant” wasn’t enough to persuade the person that Israel was the servant. The words on the page didn’t matter. He stormed off and unfriended me shortly thereafter. Another friend commented shortly thereafter, “It sure looks like Israel is the servant. It plainly says so.” The delusion (I don’t know what else to call it) is so strong, and the belief so strong, that people can read the words on a page and tell me they mean the exact opposite of what they say. I know “cult” is a loaded term, but what else can you call it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Every historical fact and truth you’ve shared in your meticulous research really DOES matter. Thank you, Matt, for all of your great work. Yes, Joseph Smith definitely showed bipolar traits – delusions of grandeur and narcissism and desperate financial risk-taking. I didn’t know about his false revelation about the Salem ‘treasure’, adding to the list of his other ‘revelations’ that were not divinely inspired. The deep debts, land purchases and credit debt, the 1837 dissenters, the tithing ‘revelation’, and Joseph Smith’s belief in Christ’s imminent Second Coming at Kirtland, and his plan for Zion, I found fascinating, irrational, and disturbing, no matter how FAIR apologists defend him and spin facts. I’m also frustrated with the church’s vast financial holdings and stored ‘rainy day’ tithes. We didn’t need to buy the Kirtland Temple from the C. of C., just to promote tourism as we do with other historical church sites. True, as you said, if Joseph Smith saw all of the church’s wealth and financial holdings today, he would be overjoyed.
LikeLike
Hi, JoLynne. Thank you for taking the time to read it. Part 4, the postmortem, will be about exactly what you mentioned: Joseph’s mental health. I think you’re absolutely right about the bipolar/NPD. I’m not a psychologist and I’m aware of the perils of attempting to diagnose people, especially when they’ve been dead for 180 years, but everything points to some combination of BP and NPD. What I don’t know is if these issues were present from an early age, or were triggered when the church was organized, or were brought on by traumatic events (of which there were plenty) or was simply the result of a man falling in love with power. What I can say is that he began to assume control very early in the game. Oliver Cowdery wrote the original Articles of the Church of Christ in 1829. Joseph then wrote his own version, using the same Book of Mormon passages Oliver used, but added more information. Joseph’s version was ratified at a church conference. When Hiram Page produced his seer stone and started having revelation, JS produced a revelation dictating that only he was allowed to receive revelation from the church. THen people started coming to him asking what God intended for them instead of going to God themselves. Joseph was happy to oblige. Multiple revelations declare him a new “Moses,” through whom God would speak and reveal commandments and lead as the “children of Israel.” Having a special or unique relationship with deity is one of the signs of grandiosity. And as you mention, the risky financial behavior. Not to mention the risky sexual behavior and the attempts to justify or rationalize it.
I felt it was important to acknowledge those individuals who saw what was happening, called it out, and were kicked out for it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Matt, I’ll look forward to part 4, then. BP disorder and NPD traits are often exhibited by teen years. I speculate that Joseph Smith’s disorder developed by age 14 with his 1st vision and by 17 with the visit by Moroni, both of which most LDS believe occurred, but I think which he embellished in his manic high episodes. My mom, her twin sis, and my grandma all had BP, my brother has BP, so I do recognize BP symptoms and traits. I’ve seen their scary manic highs and lows. You can understand why Joseph Smith’s mental disorder interests me.
LikeLike
I certainly understand. And there are contemporary accounts of JS exhibiting those highs and lows. I do differ on the First Vision. I don’t believe that happened, but is a later construction, perhaps introduced as part of Joseph’s grandiosity complex. The evidence for John the Baptist and Peter, James and John is wanting. In fact, Joseph Smith III was of the opinion it didn’t happen.
Whatever the case, it’s an interesting study.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So well done, again, brother. We are grateful for your scholarship, efforts, and time in helping the true believers in the Book of Mormon. The Lord will truly know at the last day judgement those who loved Him rather than false christs and false prophets. I pray that you, I, and the humble followers of the Lamb throughout the world will endure to the end. God bless.
LikeLike
Thanks for taking the time to read it, John. 😉
LikeLike
I couldn’t help but think of the words from the original Book of Commandments from Chapter 2:4 saying “…except thou do this, thou shalt be delivered up and become as other men….” Surely JS was delivered up (to Satan), and he did become as other men (carnal, sensual, and devilish).
LikeLike
Indeed. Joseph was warned multiple times in the early revelations that he could fall. It seems manifestly obvious that he did. Not only did he fall, be he became hardhearted. He could never get over the Missouri episode. William Law singled out Joseph’s continued hostility against the Missourians in The Expositor.
LikeLike