“For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works,
yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God,
and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires,
he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him.”
—Revelation to Joseph Smith, July 1828
Before diving into the Council of Fifty and the political Kingdom of God, I want to review a few items of interest: the 1835 acquisition of the Chandler papyri and mummies, the 1842 Whitney Letter, and an 1843 letter to Joseph Smith from Jedidiah Grant. Again, I chose these specific events from Joseph’s life because I believe they demonstrate Joseph’s history of manipulating people for his own gain and his questionable mental state, especially by Nauvoo. The portion on plural marriage ended up being twice as long as I originally intended. My apologies. It’s important information and it’s good to be aware of our history, but I’m tired of Joseph Smith the man and his shenanigans. I’m far more interested in Book of Mormon doctrine and prefer to spend my time there. Let’s get into it and put all the Joseph Smith stuff in the past, at least for now.
THE EGYPTIAN PAPYRI AND MUMMIES
I’ve mentioned Josiah Quincy several times in the last few posts. He and his travelling companion, Charles Francis Adams (who also happened to be his cousin), passed through Nauvoo in May of 1844. Quincy and Adams were men of high reputation. Quincy’s father, Josiah Quincy III, was president of Harvard, mayor of Boston and a member of Congress. Quincy Jr. served in the Massachusetts Legislature and was elected mayor of Boston in 1845. Adams was descended from two American presidents: his father was John Quincy Adams (sixth U.S. president) and his grandfather was John Adams (second U.S. president). Adams’ and Quincy’s pedigrees, privilege and education undoubtedly shaded their view of Joseph Smith and his frontier religion, but they don’t have any reason to misrepresent or lie about what he said. And according to Quincy, Joseph said quite a lot during their brief time together. Quincy’s account was published many decades later but was based on contemporary journal entries and letters mailed back to Boston during his trip. Adams made a few contemporary journal entries relating his experiences in Nauvoo. He closed by referring to Joseph Smith as a “mountebank apostle,” or a charlatan who deceived people for money.
One of Quincy’s original 1844 letters is extant. In it he writes, “We entered & soon arrived at the seat of this prophet, priest, king, Mayor, Lt General & tavern keeper’ for as each & all of these is he inspired to act.” (Emphasis added.) We’ll get to Joseph’s anointing as “prophet, priest and king” later, but it’s noteworthy that Quincy mentions it. It’s also hard not to read a little bit of sarcasm and bewilderment into it. As Jed Woodworth writes,
“[the offices of prophet, priest and king] were too reminiscent of the papal authority of Catholicism, which nativists like Quincy found both unconscionable to ‘reasoning men’ and in subtle ways seditious to the American revolutionary spirit (As did Oliver Cowdery, as I mentioned in the previous post). The pan-Protestantism of antebellum America had little tolerance for faiths with strong claims to centralized leadership such as those found in Catholicism and in minority sects such as Mormonism…Joseph Smith’s overt claims to theocratic authority, running counter to this civic religion, would disturb even a man from Massachusetts, where the state church had been disestablished for only a decade.” (Emphasis added.)
Despite any suspicion or skepticism on the part of Quincy and Adams, I don’t find any reason to disbelieve their accounts of what Joseph said. Both men claimed Joseph said he had 25,000 followers in Nauvoo and 200,000 in the Union. Quincy estimated Nauvoo’s population to be half that and contemporary studies agree. Nauvoo had about 12,000 people. Given Joseph’s propensity for grandiose claims, I believe the Quincy and Adams accurately recorded this one. I also believe Quincy accurately recorded Joseph’s claims about the mummies and papyri. (Quincy’s full account, which I highly recommend reading, can be found in the final chapter of his book, Figures of the Past)
If you haven’t read the previous post, here’s a quick recap of how Joseph Smith came into possession of the Egyptian mummies. In 1835 Michael Chandler exhibited some ancient mummies and parchment in Kirtland. One of Chandler’s pamphlets claimed the mummies “may have lived in the days of Jacob, Moses, or David.” According to most sources, Joseph Smith, Joseph Coe and Simeon Andrews each contributed $800 to acquire the mummies for a total $2,400 ($85,500). According to a later account, “Chandler allowed JS to take the papyri overnight. According to the report, JS returned them the next morning with a sample translation. Chandler then produced a sample translation by Professor Charles Anthon (yes, the same Charles Anthon) and, after comparing the two, expressed himself pleased with JS’s translation.” Chandler gave Joseph a certificate affirming the “translation.” I suspect Chandler, who had no formal training or education in the Egyptian language, was anxious to sell the artifacts and gladly provided the certificate to expedite the transaction.
With the papyri in hand, Joseph began work on the alleged translation, a process that would span several years. The Book of Mormon, by comparison, took three months after Oliver Cowdery began serving as scribe. John Gee writes of the papyri translation,
“We have no firsthand evidence that Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim (the Nephite interpreters were never called “Urim and Thummim”), or a seer stone in translating the Book of Abraham. Nor did Joseph apparently use any grammars or dictionaries in preparing his translations. Joseph Smith himself never discussed how he translated the Book of Abraham. Nevertheless, Warren Parrish, one of the scribes involved in the translation during late 1835, stated, ‘I have set [sic] by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven.’” (Emphasis added.)
It should be obvious why Joseph Smith never discussed the how: it’s not a translation. It’s a work of fiction, and a very bad one at that. It reads more like Bible fanfiction than actual scripture. Surprisingly, the LDS church freely admits that “None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham.” (Emphasis added.) Nevertheless, after the mummies came into Joseph’s possession, W.W. Phelps wrote in a letter to his wife,
“The last of June four Egyptian mummies were brought here; there were two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings with them. As no one could translate these writings, they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were and said they, the ‘rolls of papyrus,’ contained the sacred record kept of Joseph in Pharaoh’s Court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham...These records of old times, when we translate and print them in a book, will make a good witness for the Book of Mormon.” (Emphasis added)
Joseph Smith was wrong. The end. What was his motivation to lie about this, other than to display his ostensible gifts of translation? And for as much as I love W.W. Phelps, he was wrong about the Book of Abraham making a good witness for the Book of Mormon. In my opinion, the Book of Abraham has done irreparable damage to the Book of Mormon. Since we know Joseph Smith was so spectacularly and demonstrably wrong about the Book of Abraham, it casts considerable doubt on origin and authenticity of the Book of Mormon. (This is also why I advocate against the “all or nothing” approach. Truth is not co-dependent or relational. Everything stands or falls on its own merits.) Also, we see that Joseph’s intent was to publish the Book of Abraham and sell it, just as it was with the Book of Mormon, the Book of Commandments and the Doctrine and Covenants. Never pass on a chance to make a buck in the name of religion, I guess.
Contrary to his claims, what Joseph had in his possession were the Hor Book of Breathing, a funerary scroll made for a Theban Priest name Horus, and the Ta-Sherit-Min Book of the Dead. Both works date to around 300-100 BC, or some 1500-1600 years after Abraham. The Church makes the perplexing claim that, “The veracity and value of the book of Abraham cannot be settled by scholarly debate concerning the book’s translation and historicity.” (Emphasis added.) The value is debatable, sure. But the veracity absolutely can be settled by scholarly debate and has been. The Book of Abraham is a fraud. It should be rejected on both historical and theological grounds. (The Book of Abraham presents Jesus as subordinate to Jehovah even though Jesus is Jehovah according to the Book of Mormon. For an in-depth study of these issues, see this post.) You can let it go. You don’t need to defend it anymore.
Back to Quincy’s account of Joseph Smith,
“‘And now come with me,’ said the prophet,’ and I will show you the curiosities.’ So saying, he led the way to a lower room, where sat a venerable and respectable-looking lady. ‘This is my mother, gentlemen. The curiosities we shall see belong to her. They were purchased with her own money, at a cost of six thousand dollars;’ ($201,500) and then, with deep feeling, were added the words, ‘And that woman was turned out upon the prairie in the dead of night by a mob.’ There were some pine presses fixed against the wall of the room. These receptacles Smith opened, and disclosed four human bodies, shrunken and black with age. ‘These are mummies,’ said the exhibitor. ‘I want you to look at that little runt of a fellow over there. He was a great man in his day. Why, that was Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt!’ Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us. They were preserved under glass and handled with great respect. ‘That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful,’ said the prophet. ‘This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the Creation, from which Moses composed the First Book of Genesis.’ The parchment last referred to showed a rude drawing of a man and woman, and a serpent walking upon a pair of legs. I ventured to doubt the propriety of providing the reptile in question with this unusual means of locomotion. ‘Why, that’s as plain as a pikestaff!’ was the rejoinder. ‘Before the Fall snakes always went about on legs, just like chickens. They were deprived of them, in punishment for their agency in the ruin of man.’ We were further assured that the prophet was the only mortal who could translate these mysterious writings, and that his power was given by direct inspiration.” (Emphasis added.)
Joseph ended by saying, “Persons who see my curiosities usually give my mother a quarter of a dollar.” Joseph Smith, Sr. had passed away in 1840 and left Lucy with nothing. Despite Joseph Jr.’s attempts to alleviate that burden through various, and often dubious, means, the Smith family was perpetually destitute. I don’t blame Joseph for wanting to help and support his mother. I don’t think any reasonable person would. However, I have a very, very big problem using deception to achieve it. If Quincy’s recollection is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it isn’t, Joseph lied about the acquisition of the papyri and mummies, and that the translation came by “direct inspiration.” Clearly it didn’t. Nor did Lucy Mack Smith buy them with her own $6,000. Thus, Joseph had no right to charge people to see them. We have a second witness that Lucy was profiting from the mummy display. In 1843 a young woman named Charlotte Haven moved to Nauvoo. In one of her letters, she writes of calling on Lucy,
“She receives a little pittance by exhibiting The Mummies to strangers. When we asked to see them, she lit a candle and conducted us up a short, narrow stairway to a low, dark, room under the roof. On one side were standing half a dozen mummies, to whom she introduced us, King Onitus and his royal household, — one she did not know. Then she took up what seemed to be a club wrapped in a dark cloth, and said ‘This is the leg of Pharaoh’s daughter, the one that saved Moses.’ Repressing a smile. I looked from the mummies to the old lady, but could detect nothing but earnestness and sincerity on her countenance. Then she turned to a long table, set her candle-stick down, and opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was ‘the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit,’ and she read several minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very much like passages from the Old Testament — and it might have been for anything we knew — but she said she read it through the inspiration of her son Joseph, in whom she seemed to have perfect confidence. Then in the same way she interpreted to us hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent, who — the serpent, I mean — was standing on the tip of his tail, which with his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve’s ear. I said, ‘But serpents don’t have legs.’ ‘They did before the fall,’ she asserted with perfect confidence. The Judge slipped a coin in her hand which she received smilingly, with a pleasant, ‘Come again,’ as we bade her goodby.”
I have little doubt Lucy was simply repeating what Joseph told her. You’ll have to determine for yourself the propriety and ethics of duping one’s mother into such a charade. (Maybe Joseph sincerely believed it, I don’t know.) But here’s what really happened. As mentioned, originally a group comprised of Joseph Smith, Joseph Coe and Simeon Andrews agreed to purchase the Chandler artifacts for $2,400 ($85,655). Each party was to contribute $800 ($28,551). Coe and Andrews both contributed their $800. Joseph Smith, as we saw in the previous series of posts, didn’t have a profession, a job or an income and was already in considerable debt from various business ventures. I don’t know where his portion of the money came from, especially because at this time all funds were going towards the construction of the Kirtland Temple, which cost an estimated $40,000 ($1.3 million), and towards assisting the influx of poor converts. The acquisition of the artifacts seems like a burdensome expense, but thriftiness was never his strong suit.
By chance I recently stumbled across a January 1844 letter from Joseph Coe to Joseph Smith regarding the still-unresolved issue of the artifacts. Coe writes,
“I was some-what involved, and unable to sustain a heavier burthen any great length of time. but having all confidence in the utility of the [Chandler] collection, and being assured by yourself that the burthen would be but temporary; that the profits arising from the work when translated would be more than adequate to the defraying all the expence which might accrue by the purchase. I therefore managed the business in relation to the purchase with the same confidence that I had previously done business which I thought would result in the good of the church.”
Here we again see that Joseph planned to print and sell the translation of the papyri.
“Previous to closing the contract with [Michael] Chandler I made arrangements with S[imeon] Andrews for to take one third part and yourself & Co. one third leaving one third to be borne by myself. Andrews soon paid his $800 ($26,800) I took $800 ($26,800) out of Geauga Bank which paid a large portion of my share; but yours together with the interest remained until the Spring of 1836 if I mistake not. when by an arrangement with Chandler he agreed to take 1000 dollars and give up my notes; if the raise could be made on short notice the principles being settled you gave your note for the amount viz: $1000 and took from him my notes the raise was made in season to fulfill the contract and the money paid by the time of this sum.”
If I understand this correctly, Joseph and “Co.” (meaning he didn’t pay for it himself) were late in meeting their contractual obligations, resulting in additional debt due to the accruing interest. Chandler agreed to accept $1,000 ($800 + reduced interest) from Joseph if the money could be quickly raised to fulfill the contract. Coe continues,
“I raised $300 ($9,800) which I borrowed of Abel Nash. Hence by this transaction you paid $700 this sum was $100 ($3,200) besides interest; less than your contract specified. The next action between us was an agreement to exchange papers, which we did outright. In an interview with your Father after you left, I proposed to him to let me have real estate to extinguish my claim, which he said he would do, but I suppose the circumstances under which he left rendered it inconvenient. Hence I was unexpectedly involved in a sum that I have hitherto, been unable to adjust. Now I know that I have acted in relation to the above purchase, in good faith and in good feelings; and if Justice requires me to bear it, or if your circumstances render it impossible for you to relieve me, I have no more to say; but I think that neither is the fact, If you have not the means here of relieving me, others of your friends have.
If I am not much mistaken, much property has been and is being put to no better use than that of paying me for the Mummies. Cannot you make arrangements with your brother Wm [Smith] for his house and lot, or with Hyrum [Smith] for his, or let me have the use of this farm over which you are sole trustee in trust. The latter is in your power to do, and belonging to the Church as it does I presume that body would delight in relieving me from a burthen which I am bearing solely for their benefit. I have an idea that you have heretofore received but little for the use of the Church property in this place. Other property too, seems to go lightly but perhaps wisely I do not say as to that…”
Let’s break this down. Smith, Coe and Andrews each agreed to pay $800 to Chandler for the mummies and papyri. Joseph assured the other two investors that the profits from the publication of the translation would return their initial investment. Coe and Andrews fulfilled their obligation. Nine months later, Joseph had yet to live up to his end of the contract. Some reports claim that other church members contributed Joseph’s portion of the cost, which makes sense given his debt and lack of income. Coe then borrowed an additional $300 to cover the interest. Also of note, you’ll rarely find the names of Coe and Andrews in the stories relating the acquisition of the artifacts. Most sources I’ve seen read “Joseph Smith and others,” yet Joseph seems to have personally contributed little, if anything at all, to the purchase.
Nine years later in Nauvoo, Joseph charged people to see the mummies and allowed Lucy to keep the money, shutting out the two original investors. This is almost an exact repeat of the Martin Harris/Book of Mormon situation. Despite assurances to print and sell the Book of Abraham to repay those investors, Joseph published his “translation” of the Book of Abraham in the Times and Seasons in 1842. Coe’s letter is strikingly magnanimous given the circumstances. He doesn’t make demands or threats; he just wants his money back, but accepts the possibility that might not happen. The request for land or use of church-owned land in Kirtland as compensation was not unreasonable, especially considering Joseph Smith, Sr. previously agreed to it and because the Saints were gathering in their new Promised Land of Nauvoo.
And how did Joseph Smith respond? He wrote back,
“…The idea of your claiming an Interest in the Mummies astonishes me. You must either be under the influence of very corrupt feelings, or be very forgetful of your business transactions. However it may be that you have forgot some things, and I will therefore inform you by way of putting you in remembrance that I have got your Deed, executed by your own hand, in due form, for all the interest you every held in the Mummies, and consequently don’t feel under the necessity of listening to such unjust claims, nor taking any notice of them, only as above stated.
It is astonishing that any man can be so wicked and corrupt as to suffer the property of his benefactor and best friend to be sold in order to defraud him out of it by getting a Sheriffs Deed, surely the shades of darkness prevail over such a man; his heart must be hard as the nether-mill-stone, and virtue have no place in him. The tenor of your letter and other information I have received tells a black story of the situation of the Apostates in Kirtland. On the place where Godliness and uprightness once dwelt, now dwells dishonesty, fraud, envy, lying, oppression and every evil work.
But enough on this subject, I must conclude and turn my attention to a more pleasing and profitable subject.”
Please excuse the indelicacy of my language, but the balls on this dude. He’s a real piece of work. Given Joseph’s 15-year history of lying, deceiving, and manipulating others, he’s hardly in a position to call out anyone, if his claims against Coe were true. This is the narcissist on full display. The audacity of referring to himself as Coe’s “best friend and benefactor” is astonishing. Coe was excommunicated in 1838 as part of the Kirtland Dissention and everything Joseph Smith had was solely because of his benefactors and the Saints. How did Joseph have land in the first place? Because the Newel Whitney and the church. Who demanded the deeds to the Saints’ property in Ohio? Who commanded the Saints to build him a house, not once but twice? Who tried to set up multiple businesses using Newel Whitney’s money? Who commandeered Frederick G. Williams’ farm for his family’s use? Who told Whitney to absorb the debts of the failed United Firm? Who bailed Joseph out of jail? The Saints. Who introduced “tithing” the same day he had the first installment of his hefty attorney bill due? Who was the equivalent of millions of 2024 dollars in debt when he died? Who has the blood of fourteen Saints from Zion’s Camp on his hands? To accuse the Kirtlandites of “dishonesty, fraud, envy, lying, oppression and every evil work” while simultaneously lying about the first vision; the restoration of priesthood; inventing dozens of revelations and visions; and lying about the acquisition of the mummies and the content of the papyri; while setting himself up as a modern-day Moses and controlling every aspect of the Saints’ lives is beyond the pale. This letter to Joseph Coe, maybe more than anything else, demonstrates Joseph Smith’s true character. As we’ll see at the end of this post, few outside of Mormonism had anything good to say about old Joe. Joseph Coe, unfortunately, died in Kirtland in 1854 after being trampled by a bull on his farm.
The Egyptian artifacts episode is another embarrassing blight on Joseph Smith. I don’t know why he would claim the papyri contained the record of Abraham and Joseph of Egypt, much less try to demonstrate his miraculous powers by producing a translation. But here’s the question: if he was willing to lie about things as consequential as First Vision, the restoration of priesthood, the appearance of Hebrew prophets in the Kirtland Temple, the content of the papyri, etc., and also lie about seemingly inconsequential things like the acquisition and cost of the Chandler artifacts and the “Zelph Mound,” was he also willing to lie about, say, plural marriage? He’s repeatedly on the record denying that he ever engaged in any pluralistic union. Mark Twain, Senator Julius Burrows, Josiah Quincy and Judge Phillips from the Temple Lot Case all noted that Joseph denied any involvement with plural marriage. But given Joseph’s less-than-stellar track record when it comes to telling the truth, can we trust him? The lies, especially during the Nauvoo period became so commonplace and fell from his lips so easily that I wonder if he even realized he was lying.
SHADES OF PLURALISTIC UNIONS
,,The polygamy question (PQ) is far too complex to deal with in a portion of a blog post. I used to be heavily engaged in the topic and online conversations, but not anymore. I no longer care about polygamy. My position is that if Joseph Smith were a polygamist, he was wrong and shame on him. We don’t justify bad behavior just because a person in a position of power, even a prophet, engages in it. If he wasn’t a polygamist, good for him. I also don’t care about Joseph Smith’s doctrines or revelations because Joseph Smith cannot save me. There’s not one single thing he taught or “revealed” (outside of the Book of Mormon) that has any bearing on my salvation. Not one. But for a lot of people I know, polygamy is the most urgent issue in church history. There are compelling arguments on both sides of the debate. The pro-monogamy side tends to use Joseph’s own denials and the lack of children from any of other alleged wives as their most persuasive argument. (All DNA tests have come back negative). The pro-polygamy side uses the affidavits from alleged plural wives, the affidavits from William Law and his contingent in The Expositor, and D&C 132. The pro-polygamy side trusts Joseph’s denials. The pro-polygamy side trusts the affidavits. The pro-monogamy side considers William Clayton’s journals compromised, while the pro-polygamy side considers them reliable. The fact of the matter, however, is that no one will ever know exactly what happened because none of us were there. In the end, people just have to choose which side they want to believe, but it seems that 200 years from now people will still be engaged in this debate. It’s a massive distraction, in my opinion.
At any rate, Joseph’s interactions with the Whitney family, including seventeen-year-old Sarah Ann, are concerning. In August 1842 Joseph wrote a letter to Bishop Whitney, his wife, and their daughter, Sarah Ann, while he was in hiding from an extradition order from Missouri authorities. The consensus among the pro-polygamy camp, as well as the Joseph Smith Papers and other apologetic groups, is that this letter references Joseph’s alleged sealing to Sarah Ann the previous month That, to me, seems to be the case. I don’t know what else it could be about. Now, even if one believes the Whitney letter isn’t about the sealing, it’s still a big problem. What struck me about this letter, which was written by Joseph himself, is the spiritual manipulation. I’ve highlighted the problematic portions. Also pay attention to Joseph’s melodramatic tone,
“Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c. —I take this opportunity to communicate, some of my feelings, privately at this time, which I want you three eternally to keep in your own bosoms; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has passed lately between us, the time of my absence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not livelong in this way: if you three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am allied, do love me, now is the time to afford me succor, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Grangers, Just back of Brother Hyrum’s farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you come can come and see me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little ahead, and nock at the south East corner of the house at the window; it is next to the cornfield; I have a room entirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safety, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now in this time of affliction, or not all at all. Now is the time or never, but I have no need of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safety: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroic undertaking; but so much the greater friendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it, keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it, one thing I want to see you for is to get the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c.” (Spelling corrected.)
This is one of the most troubling documents associated with Joseph Smith. Red flags are everywhere. The letter is addressed to Brother and Sister Whitney and “etc.” Joseph doesn’t mention Sarah Ann by name, yet refers to the “three” of them. What had recently passed between all four of them? What are these “plans” Joseph can’t write on paper and why do they involve a seventeen-year-old girl? Why did his life depend upon them keeping this secret? Why did he want them to burn the letter? What is “the fullness of [his] blessings” on “our heads?” I don’t know how else to read this than some sort of dynastic union between the families. What else could it be?
If you’re reading this and you happen to be sympathetic to Joseph Smith, particularly if you are female, what would you do if a man in a position of religious power and authority wrote you (or someone you know) a letter and told you it was “God’s will” that you go to him and offer him “succor,” that it was “now or never,” and then appealed to your goodness by telling you that you’ll “do the will of the Lord when it’s made known to you”? Would you be concerned? This is what cult leaders do. If this were any other man than Joseph Smith, what would you think of him?
Things only get stranger from there. On September 6, 1842, Joseph, acting as “sole Trustee in Trust” of the Church, deeded property in Nauvoo to Sarah Ann for the price of $1,000. The JSP editors write that “in his role as trustee-in-trust, JS oversaw hundreds of land transactions in 1842,” so it’s not necessarily unusual. However, they add,
“There is no record that Sarah Ann Whitney made a cash payment for this land, nor is there any indication that a bond was issued with corresponding promissory notes, which would have been created if Whitney purchased the city lot on credit. She would have received the deed only after making all the required payments. While it is possible that Whitney paid for the lot and that the record of her payment is not extant, JS most likely deeded this lot to Whitney as a gift, requiring no payment. One possible explanation for the gift is that JS was trying to provide financially for Whitney, who six weeks earlier had been sealed to him as a plural wife. Concern for the financial support of other women who were sealed to JS may have prompted additional land transactions.”
There exists an alleged revelation regarding the union of Joseph and Sarah Ann dated August 27, 1842, ten days prior to the Whitney letter. There are two handwritten copies of the revelation, but the handwriting is unidentified and dates to the 1870s. It sounds like things Joseph Smith was saying at the time. One part of the revelation reads, “the thing that my servant Joseph Smith has made known unto you and your family and which you have agreed upon, is right in mine eyes, and shall be crowned upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house both old and young.” Another part reads that “through the power of anointing, David may reign King over Israel which shall hereafter be revealed. Let immortality and eternal life henceforth be sealed upon your heads forever and ever. Part in the first resurrection together with other blessings now added…” (Emphasis added.) Was this revealing of David (Joseph?) as “King of Israel” the secret plan Joseph mentioned in his letter to the Whitneys?
Then on March 23, 1843, Joseph wrote a blessing to Sarah Ann the “in the name of Jesus Christ” and by “the law of the priesthood” in which he “sealed” her to the “first resurrection” if she “remain in the everlasting covenant.” (Is that a euphemism for plural marriage?) That same day Joseph pronounced a blessing on Joseph C. Kingsbury and “sealed” his recently deceased wife, Caroline Whitney, to him. Yes, that’d be Newel Whitney’s sister. The Whitney family stood as witnesses for this blessing. And if you’re ready for it to get even weirder, Joseph Smith officiated the marriage of Sarah Ann Whitney and Joseph Kingsbury on April 29, 1843. Here’s the marriage certificate Joseph Smith signed. That means that Joseph C. Kingsbury was married to Newel Whitney’s sister and his daughter. Elizabeth and Sarah Ann Whitney later signed an affidavit that she was married to Joseph. What motivation do mother and daughter have to lie about this alleged union? Sarah Ann then married Heber C. Kimball on March 15, 1845, lending credence to the suggestion that her marriage to Kingsbury was a sham. Years later Joseph C. Kingsbury would write,
“…And on the 29th of April 1843 I according to President Joseph Smith counsel & others agreed to stand by Sarah Ann Whitney as supposed to be her husband & had a pretended marriage for the purpose of bringing about the purposes of God in these last days as spoken by the mouth of the prophets Isiah Jeremiah Ezekiel and also Joseph Smith, & Sarah Ann Should Rec’d a Great Glory Honor & Eternal Lives and I also should Rec’d a Great Glory Honor & Eternal lives to the full desire of my heart in having my Companion Caroline in the first resurrection to claim her & no one to have power to take her from me & we both shall be crowned & enthroned together in the Celestial Kingdom of God enjoying each others society in all of the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ & our little ones with us as is recorded in this blessing that President Joseph Smith Sealed upon my head on the twenty-third day of March 1843…”
In 1880 Kingsbury submitted an $8,000 ($246,000) invoice to President John Taylor “in consideration of services he had rendered in Nauvoo, and after leaving there, to the Prophet Joseph, in keeping one of his wives, Sarah Whitney, daughter of Bishop N. K. Whitney.” It is unknown if Taylor honored the request, but it seems unlikely
There is another letter of interest that I only found out about in the last year or so. On March 11 and June 2, 1843, William Clayton wrote letters addressed to Susan Conrad, a young convert in Philadelphia. Conrad’s father had passed in 1835, but Susan, her sister Ann, and her mother were aligned with Mormonism. One of the sisters, likely Mary, was not. According to William Smith, “[w]hen Susan and her mother read the letters,” which apparently proposed marriage and funds for relocation to Nauvoo, “their faith was shaken.” However, another sister, Ann Conrad, “prevailed on mother and daughter to ask for a private explanation from Church leaders in Philadelphia.” Jedidiah Grant was in the area at the time and acted as an intermediary between Smith and the Conrads. Grant, who was a member of Zion’s Camp at the age of 18, wrote a response to Smith appraising him of the difficult situation. Grant’s letter is difficult to decipher because aside from the poor spelling and grammar, he uses initials to identify certain individuals. He’s also only 27 years old at the time. This is a very difficult spot for him to be in. I’m going to clean up the letter, dated August 17-18, 1843, as much as I can and add clarifications in parentheses,
“A few days before the Twelve came to this city. I was called upon to visit a family that was somewhat troubled in mind! I was called upon to explain certain mysteries they were unable to comprehend, certain items made known and yet, unknown. (Reference to plural marriage.) I confessed that it was a great mystery, that I could not interpret it although I read very close. The one out of the church had not read letter (the non-member sister, Mary), but the three in the Church read (Mary, Ann and their mother, Elizabeth) and kept reading until two of them were about to deny the faith. Miss Susan and the mother!!! Miss Ann has been the means of keeping them in the Church and sending for me to explain. After reading, I preached, bore testimony. ‘Will you answer it, Miss Susan?’ ‘No, I cannot think of doing it. You may write if you will.’ So, I copied from the March [letter] a few words, thinking to write in a few days, but the Twelve coming in a day to two, my room has been crowded preventing me from writing.
Last Monday, Elder Orson Pratt was requested to visit, but could not as he had to go to Chester, Co. That morning, I was to go to the same house (the Conrads) with him, so, I went alone. I was informed that Elder Pratt was wanted to explain as it was not on mathematical subjects. I thought it might be difficult for him to interpret it, and as he was coming back to the city next week, I thought it best to make all things sure. So, I went to work in the name of the Lord and after using every argument that I could they delivered into my hands, all that I wanted. March, & June (the letters from Clayton). I am now in an upper room. I will at this moment light my lamp and offer a sacrifice of everything that I have obtained as a witness before the Lord that I will be true to you in time and eternity. I have made the offering. The smoke and flame have ascended. I obtained the letters on this condition: that if I got an answer, they or she should see it. In this mater whatever you say I will do, but if you write, direct it to me if you please as this is their request. They all feel better. Miss Susan cried like a child when these things were made known to me. They think you cannot explain it. If I can, I will get them all to come to Nauvoo. Miss Susan was sick and had Brothers Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, lay hands on her. They said that she felt quite cheerful.
This family think it very strange that their friend should advise one and not all. What did he (Joseph Smith) mean by sending money, attendance, and about matrimony and the will of the Lord? Brother Kimball has taught me principle (plural marriage), and Brother Brigham Young I found knew about the matter, so I read to them. They said it should be even as you desired in the name of the Lord, even so. Amen. I told them the care that I had pursued and the one I was going to take (burning the letters). They said it was right and the Lord would bless me for so doing. Give my love to Brother Hyrum. I was glad to hear that he had received the priesthood (a euphemism for plural marriage).
Clayton made two interesting entries into his journal. On May 23, 1843 he wrote, “Conversed with H[eber] C. K[imball concerning a plot that is being laid to entrap the brethren of the secret priesthood by Brother H[yrum] and others.” On May 26 he wrote that “Hyrum received the doctrine of priesthood,” or plural marriage. It appears that Joseph had a sit down with Hyrum and told him to get in line. Grant continues,
“Brother Joseph, I have been tried until I have almost desired to die. I would have given anything on earth to see you and talk with you one hour, but I now feel well and want to live long on the Earth.”
One can imagine the stress the letters put on Grant, so I find his adoration of Joseph all the more perplexing. It goes to show Joseph’s influence over some people. So, it appears that Joseph used William Clayton to write two letters to Susan Conrad proposing marriage, stating it was “the will of the Lord.” Invoking the name of God is Joseph’s modus operandi. It’s what he does. (See the Whitney Letter above.) This family is completely confused by this marriage proposal and desperately searching for an answer. What else in contents of the letter could possibly cause Susan Conrad to “cry like a child”? On August 31, Clayton recorded in his journal that Emma heard Joseph read Grant’s letter “and appeared for a while to feel very jealous.” Then in August 1844, Mary Conrad wrote to Mary Woolley, a fellow Philadelphian she met while both were temporarily in Nauvoo in 1841.
“I feel tempted to write some thing but I dare not[,] if brother Kimball had passed this way I could have trusted one by him such as I would like to write but it is not so, dear sister . . . I heard some things that completely twisted me round that if my life depended on my acting different I could not have done it. I guess Joseph would not think I had much Philosophy about me if he had seen me some times. I never was nearer crazy in my life, you will know what I mean.” (Underlined text in the original. Emphasis added.)
Woolley apparently entered into plural marriage with her husband in 1843, which is probably why Conrad wrote, “you will know what I mean.” Again, if I understand this correctly, the marriage proposal turned Susan Conrad upside down, pushing her “nearer to crazy” than she ever had been. Conrad, to her credit, declined the marriage even though she later relocated to Nauvoo and then to Utah. She married but never entered into any pluralistic unions.
William Law published testimony in The Expositor that Hyrum “read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day.” Austin Cowles’ wrote that, “In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet” that introduced the “doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that ‘David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah.’ Cowles testimony mirrors the language of D&C 132:38-39. Franklin D. Richards recorded a July 16, 1843 sermon, four days after the revelation was allegedly recorded on paper, in which Joseph said, “No man can obtain an eternal Blessing unless the contract or covenant be made in view of Eternity. All contracts in view of this Life only terminate with this Life. Case of the woman & 7 husbands Luke 20–29 &c3. Those who keep no eternal Law in this life or make no eternal contract are single & alone in the eternal world.” We find this same concept in D&C 132:7, which states that “all covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, , , performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and by the Holy Spirit of promise…are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead.” Joseph Smith’s 1838 History states that “Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood (sealing power), by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” D&C 132:7 reads, “I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood (sealing power) are conferred…” Of course he’s the only one on earth with this power. (What exactly are Temple sealers doing if only one man has this power at a time?)
The “fullness of Joseph’s blessings” referenced in the Whitney letter may also be revealed in D&C 132:
“…For I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I restore all things, and make known unto you all things in due time. And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven. And again, verily I say, whomsoever you bless I will bless, and whomsoever you curse I will curse, saith the Lord; for I, the Lord, am thy God.”
Perhaps the most remarkable thing about 132 is Joseph’s power to remit sin. Who needs Jesus in Joseph Smith’s religion? 132 continues, “For I am the Lord thy God and will be even unto the of the world (Joseph would be dead within a year, but this is consistent with Joseph’s apocalyptic worldview), and through all eternity; for verily I upon you your exaltation and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your .” Indeed, 132 declares Joseph Smith to be a direct descendent of Abraham. He’s not. He’s an Irish Gentile. But if you’re going to claim lineal authority, you may as well aim high.
Then on April 7, 1844, Joseph would give his most controversial sermon, the King Follet Discourse. It was here that Joseph Smith told the Saints that “you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you.” Godhood is the true end-goal of Mormonism. You don’t need Jesus, you need to be Jesus. At this point Joseph is allocating all of his skill points into the “GOD MODE” tree in preparation for the final boss.
These doctrines and descriptions found in D&C 132, as well as the plurality of Gods (which William Law referenced in The Expositor), are absolutely things Joseph Smith would believe about himself and codify via revelation. D&C 132 existed in some form before he died, so we can’t blame it all on Brigham Young. Brigham may have finessed it, or added a thing here or there, but these are Joseph’s ideas and doctrines. They are well-documented before he died. Even the phrase “and again” is very much Joseph’s. We find it numerous times throughout the D&C. It doesn’t make sense for Brigham Young to invent a revelation that grants Joseph Smith sealing power, exaltation, the blessing of Abraham, etc. William Law, Austin Cowles, Jedidiah Grant, Ebenezer Robinson and others who weren’t allied with Brigham Young at the time, all spoke of pluralistic unions. Further, Joseph was hardly trustworthy. His denials, to me, are meaningless. The narcissist will always deny, deflect and gaslight when confronted with their bad behavior.
To those who believe Joseph Smith was a monogamist, several things can be true: Joseph engaged in plural marriage and /or sealings; Brigham Young and his cronies kicked the door down and greatly expanded plural marriage into something Joseph never intended; some of the women who claimed to have been sealed to Joseph were telling the truth and some were not. The latter is most definitely true. I suspect there was status in being “one of Joseph’s wives,” just as there was status or notoriety in claiming to have witnessed Brigham Young’s “transfiguration” into Joseph Smith, an event which absolutely did not happen. People want to be part of important events. But just because some women may have lied or were pressured into signing affidavits affirming marriage to Joseph, it doesn’t mean they were all lying.
When Emma was asked by her son, Joseph Smith III, if Joseph Smith was ever married to more than one woman, Emma emphatically replied that Joseph was only ever married to her. Let me pose a question: is it unreasonable, and maybe even noble, for Emma to shield her children from Joseph’s behavior? I think it’s highly plausible and probable. Consider the fact, too, that Emma lost her husband, several children, four brothers-in-law (Alvin, Don Carlos, Hyrum and Samuel); she was dragged from New York to Ohio to Nauvoo. She was perpetually poor. When Joseph died, all of his financial issues fell onto her. Is it also unreasonable to suggest that Emma also broke under the weight of that much stress, trial and tribulation? I probably would have. Or maybe she was just in denial. Whatever the case and given everything Emma went through, I give her a pass.
At any rate, with Joseph’s “exaltation” secured, and vast powers to remit sin and curse people via divine imprimatur, he turned his attention to establishing the political kingdom of God on earth.
THE COUNCIL OF FIFTY
With tensions between the Mormons and their Nauvoo neighbors escalating (just as they had in Independence and Kirtland) and failed appeals to the Federal Government to redress the Saints’ losses and protect their freedom of worship, Joseph organized the Council of Fifty, a non-denominational shadow government (three non-Mormons were members). The records of the Council were unavailable to the public until they were published by the Joseph Smith Papers in 2013. According to the Church, in early 1844,
“Joseph Smith convened a council to discuss proposed Latter-day Saint settlements in areas that were then outside the United States, such as in California and Texas. The council deliberated not only about how Church leaders would govern these settlements but about how to establish a political kingdom or government in preparation for the millennial reign of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith and his associates saw this council as the beginning of such a kingdom…”
Again, as I mentioned in the previous post, nowhere does the Revelation of St. John say that Christ will dwell on earth for 1,000 years. (And neither does the Book of Mormon.) It says the martyrs who were beheaded for their testimony of Jesus during John’s time period were raised to reign with Christ, who already reigns. It never says that will happen on earth. So, the whole notion of Jesus dwelling on earth for 1,000 years is a false premise on which to establish a theodemocratic kingdom.
“Joseph Smith intended the council to function separately from the Church. While the Church was responsible for spiritual concerns and the eternal salvation of God’s children, the Council of Fifty was a political or civic organization formed to ‘govern men in civil matters.’ Many of Joseph’s closest associates participated in the council, including members of the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and Nauvoo High Council. Joseph also admitted three non-Mormons to the council.”
To that end, on March 14, 1844, the nascent kingdom was given the revelatory name of “The Kingdom of God and His Laws with the Keys and Power thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ.” “His servants,” of course, were the members of The Council of Fifty with Joseph Smith at the head. “Ahman,” Joseph explained, “signifies the first man or first God, and ‘Ahman Christ’ signifies the first man’s son.” (Does this mean Christ is the son of Adam? Or is God the first man? Is this the true origin of the Adam-God theory? I sincerely don’t know what that means.) The Council then proposed a new constitution for the new Kingdom. John Taylor, Willard Richards, William W. Phelps and Parley P. Pratt were charged with seeking inspiration to write the constitution. Their efforts failed. So, in a strange turn of events, Kurt Manwaring writes, “[Joseph] proceeded to deliver a revelation from God in which the council members themselves were identified as a living constitution inasmuch as they sought divine aid.” This also gave Joseph free reign to change, adapt, or revise as he saw fit.
As with many other church doctrines and beliefs, Sidney Rigdon may have been the instigator of, or at least an influence on, this political kingdom. The JSP editors write,
“In his morning address on 6 April (1844), Rigdon stated that ‘mankind have labored under one universal mistake’ in believing that ‘salvation was distinct from government; i. e.; that I can build a church without government, and that thing have power to save me.’ By contrast, Rigdon taught, ‘When God sets up a system of salvation, he sets up a system of government (does He?); when I speak of a government I mean what I say; I mean a government that shall rule over temporal and spiritual affairs.” (Emphasis added.)
Well, Rigdon was wrong. I don’t recall Christ setting up a government in tandem with a church in either Bountiful or Jerusalem.
PROPHET, PRIEST AND KING
With plans for the Kingdom in hand, naturally said Kingdom needs a leader. The JSP editors write,
“In the midst of these discussions on governmental principles in the kingdom of God, Erastus Snow on 11 April 1844 moved that the council ‘receive from this time henceforth and forever, Joseph Smith, as our Prophet, Priest & King, and uphold him in that capacity in which God has anointed him.'” (Emphasis added.)
If you are familiar with Christian history, you may recognize “prophet, priest and king” as the threefold office (munus triplex) traditionally applied to Christ. That Joseph Smith accepted these titles suggests to me that he considered himself if not on par with Christ, a type of Christ or precursor to Christ. (According to Eber D. Howe’s 1834 book, Mormonism Unveiled, Martin Harris accepted Joseph as “prophet, priest and king” [p. 13]. Howe is definitely a hostile witness, but I don’t see any reason to reject the claim.)
“Snow’s motion was unanimously accepted. This action dramatically demonstrates the council members’ views of theodemocracy, under which the ecclesiastical leader of the church (prophet and priest) would be chosen by them as a political leader (king). Council participants understood that this action would have no immediate political consequences, but it symbolized their desire to prepare for the millennial kingdom of God. Joseph Smith and others in the council emphasized that leaders in the kingdom of God would govern by fostering free discussion, by respecting the people, and by serving as a conduit for revelation and God’s law.” (Parenthesis in the original, emphasis added. What is “God’s law” other than faith, repentance, baptism, holy ghost and endure to the end?)
A month later, on May 12, 1844, Joseph Smith gave one of his most significant sermons. There are multiple accounts of what he said, so I feel pretty confident Joseph did in fact say these things and it shows just how untethered from reality he had become. The Bullock account reads that Joseph read Matthew 24 (of course he did) and offered some remarks,
“I shall read the 24th. ch of Matthew and give it a literal rendering & reading, and when rightly understood will be edifying (he translated it from the German) I thought the very oddity of its rendering would be edifying any how— “And it will preached be, the Gospel of the Kingdom in the whole world, to a witness over all people, and then will the end come.” I will now read it in German— (several persons said he translated it correct) the Savior said, when those tribulations should take place, it should be committed to a man, who should be a witness over the whole world, the keys of knowledge, power, and revelations, should be revealed to a witness who should hold the testimony to the world; it has always been my province to dig up hidden mysteries, new things, for my hearers— just at the time when some men think that I have no right to the keys just at that time, I have the greatest right.” (Parentheses in the original. Emphasis added)
You can read the German version. It says no such thing. Neither does the original Greek. I don’t know how he extrapolated the idea that the kingdom would be committed to man, meaning him of course. This goes hand-hand with Joseph Smith being the only person to have sealing power, as we read in D&C 132. Of note, Joseph’s 1830 revision to Matthew 24 doesn’t include these changes. The KJV and JST are nearly identical:
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” (KJV)
“And again (See 132 for another use of “and again.”) this of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all , and then shall the end come, or the destruction of the wicked.” (JST)
If the German version, as he claimed, contained the correct rendering of these verses, would we not expect to find them in his “revealed/inspired” version? But again, this is what Joseph does. He makes a claim or prophetic declaration and years later changes it or contradicts it. He then said,
“…every man who has a calling to the world, was ordained to that very purpose in the grand Council of Heaven— I suppose that I was ordained to this very office in that grand Council— it is the testimony that I want, that I am God’s servant, and this people his people— in the last days the God of Heaven shall set up a Kingdom & the very time that was calculated on, this people was struggling to bring it out— he that arms himself with Gun, sword, or Pistol will some time be sorry for it— I never carry any thing bigger than my Pen Knife— when I was dragged before the Cannon and muskets in Missouri, I was unarmed, God will always protect me (He was dead six weeks later). I calculate to be one of the Instruments of setting up the Kingdom of Daniel, by the word of the Lord, and I intend to revolutionize the whole world.” (Emphasis added.)
According to George Laub’s account, Joseph read Revelation 14:6-7 (of course), which references another angel flying in the midst of heaven, then said,
“…I will send you another witness (Joseph Smith) and he shall preach this gospel to all nations to the Ends of the world. But woe to that man or woman who shall lift up his or their hands against God’s witness (Joseph Smith) for they are raising their arm against the power of God, and they will be cursed. (There’s no difference between God and Joseph Smith). But in these times in the last days there will many false prophets arise and false teachers and deceive many. They shall have many followers by their deceit. They strive to get power and by their pernicious ways lead off man (A lack of self-awareness is generally associated with NPD. We also saw this manifest in the Coe letter) —For Brother Joseph Smith was chosen for the Last dispensation or seventh Dispensation the time the grand council set in heaven to organize this world Joseph was chosen for the Last and greatest Prophet to Lay the foundation of Gods work…Brother Joseph Smith was sent to remind the world of sin of righteousness and of a judgment that was to come.” (Emphasis added, spelling corrected.)
Samuel Richards’ account reads,
“After reading the 24th Chap of Matt. from an Ancient German Bible Text. ‘The Kingdom must preached be to a witness over all Nations People,’ ‘preached to a man who should be a witness to all people, is the meaning of the text.” quoted Rev. 14-6 having the Gospel saying the hour of his Judgment is come. (It’s been 180 years.) At the general grand Council of heaven, all those to whom a dispensation was to be committed, were set apart & ordained at that time, to that calling.” (Emphasis added.)
And as if all this weren’t enough, Joseph Smith also launched an ill-fated presidential campaign. I don’t want to get too bogged down in that, but George Miller, a member of the Council of Fifty, wrote in 1855,
“It was further determined in Council that all the elders should set out on missions to all the States to get up an electorial [sic] ticket, and do everything in our power to have Joseph elected president. If we succeeded in making a majority of the voters converts to our faith, and elected Joseph president, in such an event the dominion of the Kingdom would be forever established in the United States; and if not successful, we could fall back on Texas, and be a kingdom notwithstanding…”
Prophet, Seer, Revelator, General, Mayor, Magistrate, Priest, King and President. There are delusions of grandeur and then there is Joseph Smith. I don’t know if he has a parallel in all of world history. It’s extraordinary. Everything is about him. Only he has the keys and authority. Only he has the power to seal. Only he has the right to set up the kingdom. Only he is allowed to receive revelation for the church. He’s the witness over whole world. He has the power to remit sin. He is the new Moses and a direct descendent of Abraham. He was God’s servant. He the last and greatest prophet of this last dispensation. To my eyes, it is crystal clear that Joseph Smith is delusional in the clinical sense of the term. These are not the behaviors of a rational and well-adjusted man.
Despite his lofty aspirations, self-aggrandizement and assurances that God would protect him, Joseph Smith’s time was short. On June 27, 1844, Joseph and Hyrum were killed by a mob (no, it wasn’t Brigham Young, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff). I’m not in favor of anyone being murdered, a terrible crime for which no one was ever accountable, but I can’t help but wonder what would have happened had he lived past 1844. Would the Saints have set up a theodemocracy outside U.S. boundaries? What would have happened as the country expanded west over the next 60 years? Brigham Young set up a theocratic kingdom, but the Feds made him bend the knee. They made Wilford Woodruff bend the knee over polygamy in 1890. Had Joseph lived, it likely would have been no different, except I think we may have seen more bloodshed. Maybe it’s not a terrible thing Joseph Smith passed when he did. After all, “It’s better that one man perish…” as they say, because Joseph, in addition to his militarism, didn’t hesitate from issuing threats, condemnations and curses on those he considered his enemies or those who failed to support him. One of the earliest examples is found in his journal,
“April 1st Tuesday my Soul delighteth in the Law of the Lord for he forgiveth my sins and will confound mine Enimies the Lord shall destroy him who has lifted his heel against me, even that wicked man Docter P. Hurlbert he will deliver him to the fowls of heaven and his bones shall be cast to the blast of the wind for he lifted his arm against the Almighty (Joseph) therefore the Lord shall destroy him.”
Dr. Philastus Hurlbut was arrested in 1834 for allegedly threatening Joseph’s life. He had been excommunicated in 1833 for attempting to seduce a young woman, and then collected affidavits for Howe’s Mormonism Unveiled. Hurlbut outlived Joseph by 40 years. So, there’s that. Three times Joseph cursed the Missourians “unto the third and fourth generation.” First in D&C 103 (February 1834) as tensions rose in Jackson County, writing, “And my presence shall be with you even in avenging me of mine enemies, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.” Then after the failure of Zion’s Camp, Joseph wrote in D&C 105 (June 1834),
“For it is my will that these lands [in Jackson County] should be purchased; and after they are purchased that my saints should possess them according to the laws of consecration which I have given. And after these lands are purchased, I will hold the armies of Israel guiltless in taking possession of their own lands, which they have previously purchased with their moneys, and of throwing down the towers of mine enemies that may be upon them, and scattering their watchmen, and avenging me of mine enemies unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. But first let my army become very great…” (Zion, unsurprisingly, was never redeemed, either by persuasion or by force.)
What is this other than an open declaration of war? How would the Missourians reasonably react to such an edict? Exactly as any other group would react—by taking up arms and preparing to fight. Lastly in Nauvoo, Joseph writes another alleged revelation (D&C 124) from God, “I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work [in Missouri], unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God. (January 1841). The Missourians appeared to be just fine after the Mormon were exiled, even unto the third and fourth generations. William Law chastised Joseph in The Expositor, writing “That the hostile spirit and conduct manifested by Joseph Smith, and many of his associates towards Missouri and others inimical to his purposes, are decidedly at variance with the true spirit of Christianity, and should not be encouraged by any people, much less by those professing to be the ministers of the gospel of peace.”
While incarcerated at Liberty Jail, Joseph wrote, “O Lord God Almighty…Let thine be kindled against our enemies; and, in the fury of thine heart, with thy us of our wrongs.” (D&C 121, March 1839). D&C 84 instructs Bishop Whitney to visit the churches to search “after the poor to to their wants by the rich and the proud.” He’s told to,
“…go to New York, also to the city of Albany, and also to the city of Boston, and warn the people of those cities with the sound of the gospel, with a loud voice, of the desolation and utter abolishment which await them if they do reject these things. For if they do reject these things the hour of their judgment is nigh, and their house shall be left unto them desolate.” v. 114-115).
Albany and Boston all still stand. A July 1830 revelation instructs Joseph to go to the NY branches where “they shall (financially) support thee, and I will bless them both spiritually and temporally. But if they receive thee not, I will send upon them a cursing instead of a blessing.” (D&C 24:15). Joseph issued impotent threats and curses, prophesied hellfire and brimstone, and in the end none of it happened. Everyone he cursed and threatened outlived him. What does this say about his prophecies and revelations? As I mentioned in the last post, Joseph is acting the part of what he thinks a prophet is. But since he wasn’t one, nor ever was intended to be one, his dismal track record isn’t surprising.
Joseph’s hostility and militarism didn’t go unnoticed by outsiders. George Moore, a Unitarian minister from nearby Quincy, met with Joseph Smith in Nauvoo in 1844, noted he had “two large cannon, mounted in his yard.” Moore was shocked and wrote in his journal,
“Can this be a prophet of God, thought I, who must have cannon for a guard, and must convert all his followers into soldiers—into a ‘Nauvoo Legion’—and excite in them a warlike spirit? What a return in this to Judaism, nay to Judaism, but to barbarism?…How happens it that an ordinary man by such ordinary means can exert such an influence and sustain himself? It is strange, it is passing strange—it is wonderful—and yet so it is. It shows this most certainly, that there is a great deal of credulity in man.” (Emphasis added.)
Moore was of the opinion that Joseph’s militarism ultimately resulted in his death. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but the Saints warlike manner probably didn’t help. I don’t want to belabor the point too much longer, but as Joseph left for Carthage, he reportedly said, “I have a conscience void of offense towards God and towards all men. I shall die innocent, and it shall yet be said of me—he was murdered in cold blood.” If there’s any statement that perfectly distills Joseph Smith down to his primal essence, this is it. At the close of the King Follet discourse, he reportedly said, “I never think any evil, nor do anything to the harm of my fellow-man.” Here, again, we see Joseph’s lack of empathy and inability to see the consequences of actions. Over the course of these five posts, we have seen time and time again that Joseph Smith repeatedly lied, misled, deceived, abused his power, produced false revelations, tried to swindle people out of their money, made decisions that altered the trajectories of so many lives, and in the case of Zion’s Camp, resulted in the loss of fourteen Saints. Rather than demonstrate even a sliver of humility or reflection as he marched to his death, we instead see Joseph’s narcissism on full display.
Nothing was his fault.
So, what do we make of Joseph Smith? How did we go from “he shall pretend to no other gift” than the translation of the Book of Mormon to what FAIR described as “the presiding authority over [the Council of Fifty] in his most exalted position within the kingdom of God (as a King and a Priest)”? (Emphasis added.) In doing my research for this post, I came across two 1832 journal entries that may shed some light. These admittedly may be innocuous statements that reflect contemporary concerns, or they may give us a window into his state of mind. On November 28 he writes, “…this day I have spent in reading and writing. this Evening my mind is calm and serene for which I thank the Lord.” (Emphasis added.) On December 4 he writes,”…this day I been unwell done but little; been at home all day regulated some of my things. this Evening feel better in my mind then I have for a few days back. Oh Lord deliver out thy servent out of temptations and fill his heart with wisdom and understanding.” (Emphasis added.)
Joseph’s youngest son, David Hyrum (b. November 1844), struggled with mental illness throughout his life. In a letter to his mother he wrote, “Mother I must tell you … I feel very sad and the tears run out of my eyes all the time and I don’t know why. … strive as I will my heart sinks like lead. … I must tell someone my troubles.” Sadly, he was confined to the Northern Illinois Hospital and Asylum for the Insane in 1877 where he lived out his remaining 27 years of life.
I don’t believe Joseph Smith was a well man and maybe it was something that ran in the family. But whether Joseph was unwell from an early age, or his grandiosity was triggered by the Smith family poverty, the deaths of first three children (this is very real trauma, though he never really spoke about it so far as I know), the persecution by anti-Mormons, the incarceration at Liberty Jail, or the result of a man who succumbed to the temptations of power and wealth, I can’t say. You’ll have to decide for yourself. The point, if there is one, is that whatever his virtues were, Joseph Smith was a deeply troubled and flawed man. (We all are to some degree.) This is why I try to hammer the point home that the testimony of man is the worst kind of testimony one can have. It obliges one to accept the man’s doctrines and revelations prima facie. Joseph Smith presented as revelation a very large number of false doctrines and teachings that don’t align with either the New Testament or Book of Mormon. Those two books were to grow together to weed out false doctrines, not Joseph Smith’s revelations. If this series of post has caused you to question your testimony of Joseph Smith, well, good. Anyone who seeks a testimony of Joseph Smith or any other man, is, to be blunt, a fool. No revelation or doctrine should be accepted based on Joseph Smith’s supposed reputation as a prophet. Joel Tiffany, an American Spiritualist and Occultist (which doesn’t have the same connotation it does today), published his interview with Martin Harris in his periodical, Tiffany’s Monthly, in 1859. Tiffany wrote,
“People sometimes wonder that the Mormon can revere Joseph Smith. That they can by any means make a Saint of him. But they must remember, that the Joseph Smith preached in England, and the one shot at Carthage, Ill., are not the same. The ideal prophet differs widely from the real person. To one, ignorant of his character, he may be idealized and be made the impersonation of every virtue. He may be associated in the mind with all that is pure, true, lovely and divine. Art may make him, indeed, an object of religious veneration. But remember, the Joseph Smith thus venerated, is not the real, actual Joseph Smith.” (Emphasis added)
I agree. We have put a halo above his head. But we should measure the message, not the man. If we have any hope of extracting ourselves from this mess, we have to start with Joseph Smith. It’s a Herculean task, but we, as Gentiles, have great promises made to us—including the sealed portion and all of Jesus’ revelations—if we but repent. Some might think I have been too hard on Joseph or that I’ve neglected his virtues. Of course he had good qualities. We all do. But when it comes to Jesus and religion, I have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to individuals who use Jesus or the Gospel or the pure in heart to advance their own interests. I’m not interested in those folks. There is no man or woman alive now or in the future who can offer you anything you don’t already have access to. Jesus has already done it all and He’s asking so little in return. Put your faith in Him. Go serve your neighbor. Go visit the sick and afflicted. Be a good example to those in your sphere of influence. Try a little better every day. Do these things and I’m sure you’ll be fine. It’s not complicated.
I’ll close this post with some contemporary observations made by those who met or knew Joseph Smith. I might be accused to cherry-picking, and that’s fair. I am. I’m trying to provide a counterpoint to the narrative within Mormonism, particularly those in the various post-LDS schismatic movements, that Joseph Smith was an infallible, perfectly honest, noble and virtuous man who was a victim of a Brighamite conspiracy to “hijack the restoration.” That’s not the Joseph Smith of history. These accounts are from people who were not allied with Brigham Young or each other, yet we find so many similarities in their observations.
CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTS
Josiah Quincy wrote,
“Smith was well versed in the letter of the scriptures, though he had little comprehension of their spirit. He began by denying the doctrine of the Trinity, and supported his views by the glib recitation of a number of texts. From this he passed to his own claims to special inspiration, quoting with great emphasis the eleventh and twelfth verses of the fourth chapter of Ephesians, which, in his eyes, adumbrated the whole Mormon hierarchy. The degrees and orders of ecclesiastical dignitaries he set forth with great precision, being careful to mention the interesting revelation which placed Joseph Smith supreme above them all…The prophet referred to his miraculous gift of understanding all languages, and took down a Bible in various tongues, for the purpose of exhibiting his accomplishments in this particular. Our position as guests prevented our testing his powers by a rigid examination, and the rendering of a few familiar texts seemed to be accepted by his followers as a triumphant demonstration of his abilities… (Emphasis added)
In 1838 Oliver Cowdery wrote a terse letter to Joseph, implying Joseph’s dishonesty,
“I learn from Kirtland, by the last letters, that you have publickly said, that when you were here I confessed to you that I had willfully lied about you— this compels me to ask you to correct that statement, and give me an explanation—until which you and myself are two.”
The aforementioned George Moore wrote,
“[Joseph] asked me if I was a Clergyman—and of what denomination—and what were the fundamental doctrines of our faith—on my telling him that we believed in divine Unity—in one God in one person—he said, we don’t agree with you there. We believe in three Gods, equal in power and glory. (The Book of Mormon makes it clear there is one God.) There are three personages in heaven, but those three are not one. I suppose, from what I hear, that Smith makes it a point not to agree with any one in regard to his religious opinions, and adapts himself to the person with whom he talks for the time being…He expressed a desire to have a long conversation with me, but he had an engagement, and I was soon going away, so that we could not have much conversation. Our interview was short, but pleasant…” (Emphasis added.)
In his letter to Edward Partridge, Ezra Booth wrote,
“…have you not frequently observed in Joseph, a want of that sobriety, prudence, and stability, which are some of the most prominent traits in the Christian character? Have you not often discovered in him, a spirit of lightness and levity, a temper of mind easily irritated, and an habitual proneness to jesting and joking?”
Eber Howe likewise wrote,
“His address is easy, rather fascinating and winning, of a mild and sober deportment, when not irritated. But he frequently becomes boisterous by the impertinence or curiosity of the skeptical, and assumes the bravado, instead of adhering to the meekness which he professes. His followers, of course, can discover in his very countenance all the certain indications of a divine mission.” (Emphasis added.)
An anonymous contributor to the Christian Examiner wrote,
“Smith, exalted to the height to which his ambition had long aspired, united with the titles of Prophet, President, and Mayor that of General of the Nauvoo Legion, a body of troops which were enrolled as a portion of the State militia. His vanity even allowed the idle compliment of his name being brought forward as the candidate of his people for the office of President of the United States.” (Christian Examiner, Volume III, May 1858)
Governor Ford of Illinois left possibly the most important summation of Joseph Smith,
“His lusts, his love of money and power, always set him to studying present gratification and convenience, rather than the remote consequences of his plans…It must not be supposed that the pretended Prophet practiced the tricks of a common impostor; that he was a dark and gloomy person, with a long beard, a grave, and severe aspect, and a reserved and saintly carriage of his person; on the contrary he was full of levity, even to boyish romping; dressed like a dandy, and at times drank like a sailor and swore like a pirate. He could, as occasion required, be exceedingly meek in his deportment, and then again rough and boisterous as a highway robber; being always able to satisfy his followers of the propriety of his conduct. He always quailed before power and was arrogant to weakness. At times he could put on the air of a penitent, as if feeling the deepest humiliation for his sins, and suffering unutterable anguish, and indulging in the most gloomy forebodings of eternal woe. At such times, he would call for the prayers of the brethren in his behalf, with a wild and fearful energy and earnestness…” (Emphasis added)
This is the Joseph Smith duality I mentioned in the previous post that may indicate some level of bipolarity. He’s a man of extreme highs and extreme lows. If Ford’s summation is the most important, Josiah’s Quincy’s is perhaps the most well-known,
“I should not say quite all that struck me about Smith if I did not mention that he seemed to have a keen sense of the humorous aspects of his position. ‘It seems to me, General,’ I said, as he was driving us to the river, about sunset, ‘that you have too much power to be safely trusted to one man.’ ‘In your hands or that of any other person,’ was the reply, ‘so much power would, no doubt, be dangerous. I am the only man in the world whom it would be safe to trust with it. Remember, I am a prophet!’ The last five words were spoken in a rich, comical aside, as if in hearty recognition of the ridiculous sound they might have in the ears of a Gentile….”
Quincy ended his recollection with the problem we all face when dealing with Joseph Smith: “If the reader does not know just what to make of Joseph Smith, I cannot help him out of the difficulty. I myself stand helpless before the puzzle.”
POSTSCRIPT: THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
Given Joseph’s long history of fabrications, what about the Book of Mormon. Is it, too, a fabrication? I don’t believe so. (Maybe that just the copium talking.) There are many reasons why, and maybe someday I’ll do post on that subject. But allow me to review a few of the reasons I believe the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.
It makes little sense to me for Joseph Smith to write a book that undermines the First Vision. There’s no Mormonism in the Book of Mormon. There’s no millennium in the Book of Mormon. There’s no LDS priesthood or “priesthood power” in the Book of Mormon. There’s no “restoration of the Gospel” or a formation of a Latter-Day church prophesied church in the Book of Mormon There’s no apocalypticism in the Book of Mormon. It seems very odd to me that the imminence of Jesus’ “Second Coming” informed Joseph’s worldview and his revelations, but he didn’t bother to weave into the Book of Mormon. (Jesus does return in the Book of Mormon, but at the very end of time as we understand it, whenever that is, not to establish a “millennial kingdom.”) Joseph’s interpretation of Zion is wildly different from Zion of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon’s Zion theology is consistent with Isaiah’s Zion theology. (I can’t wait to jump into this topic. It’s one of my favorites). Proxy baptism is roundly rejected in the Book of Mormon (Joseph Smith doesn’t understand the Atonement). The locations Joseph identified as “Book of Mormon lands” (the “Plains of the Nephites,” Zelph Mound,” etc.) bear no resemblance whatsoever to the geography Mormon describes.
Those who have done linguistic studies on the Book of Mormon suggest anyone except for Joseph Smith wrote it. Jerald and Sandra Tanner suggested in The Case Against Mormonism that Joseph “borrowed” from the New York Wayne Sentinel, the Palmyra Herald (February 19, 1823), the Westminster Confession, the Apocrypha, Old and New Testaments, Shakespeare’s complete works, and Fox’s Book of the Martyrs. The Spaulding Manuscript and Josiah Priest’s American Antiquities have both been put forth as possible sources. Other’s claim Sidney Rigdon wrote it. These all seem to be concessions that Joseph Smith was unable to write it by himself. On that I agree. It is far too complex a book, both theologically and structurally, for Joseph Smith to have dictated it off the top of his head in ninety days. We also have the fact that some of grammar, syntax and phrasing found in the Book of Mormon date to the Early Modern English period (c. 1500-1750) and were obsolete by the 1820s.
But most importantly, the central message of the Book of Mormon is that Jesus Christ is, in fact, the Eternal God. The One and Only. Joseph Smith didn’t teach this, much less believe it. He believed multiple Gods and that Jesus volunteered to become the Savior. We don’t find that Jesus in the Book of Mormon. If we try to make the Book of Mormon more than what it claims for itself—to convince the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God—then we will have missed the point. It was never supposed to be about Joseph Smith or a “restoration of the Gospel.” The Gospel, as Jesus defined it, has always existed and has always been present.
I’ll think we’ll leave it there. If you managed to get here, I thank you for your time and comments. To preview the next post, there is another man out there right now who, like Joseph, was arrested; who, like Joseph, claims to have been in the presence of Jesus Christ, Hebrew prophets, and angels; whose followers have canonized his revelations; who, like Joseph, has produced additional scripture (the alleged “Testimony of John” referenced in D&C 93, even though John the disciple didn’t write the Gospel of John);” who, like Joseph, changed passages in the Book of Mormon to better fit his theology; who, like Joseph, demoted Jesus from Infinite and Eternal God to “God’s biological son” (and Mary is actually Heavenly Mother!); and who, like Joseph, displays a breathtaking hubris. He also claims God renamed him “David.” His revelations borrow Joseph Smith’s language. He said he was “persuaded” that his book, Passing the Heavenly Gift, “is the most correct account of our dispensation written so far.” Ah, to be persuaded of one’s own greatness. He also claims to “understand [Joseph Smith] as well as any person who has reviewed the written record about him.” I think this man was so seduced by Joseph Smith that he subconsciously became Joseph Smith. We’re going to talk about this and more in the next post on the false doctrine known as “the second comforter.”
Oh, boy!
BOOK OF MORMONISM 
Thanks for the additional info about the fall of Joe Smith. I agree with you. James
LikeLike
thanks for taking the time to read. 😉
LikeLike
Great work again. I do have to say that your polygamy section has inaccuracies and some poor inferences, but the overall sentiment of the piece as a whole rings true. I see Joseph and his mother as being two peas in a pod in the lens through which they see the world. Reading her biography of Joseph it is easy to feel that she is often embellishing. In that regard they fit very well into the 1800s. I lean toward them generally being sincere, but Joseph clearly puts himself in the position of the imposed upon good-guy more than reality demonstrates. His image of himself was definitely way too big. He is simply the unlearned man, much to the detriment of many around him.
I am a slightly-weighted weeble on the Joseph’s polygamy/monogamy issue. I may wabble but I don’t fall down. As I’ve said before I lean toward the monogamy side, but it is inconsequential ultimately. I see the strongest theory about 132 for the monogamy side being that there was a “revelation” on eternal marriage that was then incorporated by the Utah church and released as a full Joseph revelation in 1852. Such a revelation allowing Hyrum to be married to Jerusha in heaven while being married to Mary on earth, makes William Law’s Expositor affidavit 100% true without Joseph being a Brigham style polygamist. Joseph III writes of a visit he had in Utah with Willard Richards’ son which supports this theory:
“One interesting caller was Heber John Richards, son of Doctor Willard Richards. He was a quasi-doctor, and my memorandum suggests that he was an odd fellow and his visit much enjoyed. When he came in he looked carefully about to see if we were alone, for he seemed to fear that if overheard he might possibly be compromised. In asking him questions I tried to keep within the lines of safety for him. Rather cautiously he gave me his story, told of his rebellion against his family, and how he cut himself off from church membership by asserting his freedom as a man and his right to think and act for himself. By this step he had escaped the intolerable interference with his personal affairs such as most men out there experienced. He had studied medicine and practiced it to some extent. He came in to see me especially, he said, to give me the assurance that he sympathized with our work and wished us success. Further, he wished me to know that in the past he had been secretary in certain church councils and had come into possession of considerable valuable information. He followed this statement by saying, with a significant little laugh, that we need never fear that we would be confronted by any boasted documents or records that would prove our position wrong, ‘for I assure you, Brother Joseph, they destroyed the records upon which their claim is based. They did not wish to have that sort of material evidence about, for sharp controversy over it had arisen, grown very bitter, and to end it the records were destroyed.'”
All of that said, I cringe at having ever thought that I needed to have a “testimony” of Joseph Smith. What an absolutely ridiculous and faithless idea.
Can’t wait for the next one.
LikeLike
If there are any inaccuracies, please let me know what they are so I can correct them. My ego can take it. 😉 Sources within Mormonism are a big problem because everyone was lying. I dislike in general the argument of “go to the sources,” because unless you have video evidence, every “source” is a human being with motives, worldviews, perspectives, etc. Joseph Smith was untrustworthy and motive. Brigham Young was untrustworthy and had motive. Shoot, everyone was lying and had some motive. There’s a reason Jesus called the Mormons basically the worst people on earth…
I mentioned in the post the possibility that what Joseph did, or was trying to do, could have been very different from what Brigham Young and the SLC crew were doing. That plausible to me. He’s still wrong, but it could have just been dynastic sealings to create familial bonds. I find the Whitney Letter pretty damning, however, especially because it’s in JS’s own handwriting. Plus, by Nauvoo I believe Joseph was pretty much out of his mind and untethered from reality. But I agree: none of it matters. I don’t care if JS was a prophet or not, so to PQ has no bearing on my life. But it’s catnip for the post-LDS crew. Joseph Smith, in my opinion, is a massive distraction. (As I just dedicated five posts and 50,000+ words to the man. Yeesh!)
I remember a time when I used to pray for a vision or dream of JS preaching. So, you’re not alone there. Funny how times change. Thanks, as always, for the comment. I’m excited to jump into the Second Comforter stuff. It’s been a long time coming.
LikeLike
The most glaring inaccuracy is:
“Both William Law and Austin Cowles…published testimony in the Expositor that on July 12,1843 Hyrum read a document (D&C 132) in a High Council meeting that mentioned the plurality of wives.”
In the Expositor, Law does not mention a revelation before the High Council at all. Cowles says Hyrum read a revelation in the council but “in the latter part of the summer, 1843” (elsewhere pegged to August). July 12, 1843, otherwise known as William Clayton’s most insanely busy clerking day in the history of clerking, is the day that the revelation was received.
Many ultimately unimportant topics can be endlessly fascinating. I appreciate you indulging the distractions.
LikeLike
Awesome. Thank you for the correction. I got the July 12th date confused. I’ve amended the post.
LikeLike
Thanks Brother … I can’t imagine how much time and effort you put forth to find and tie together cohesive and concise expose` of facts. We, who are willing to put our trust in Christ, and not look for the easy way out by trusting in the arm of flesh, are enriched by your abilities.
Our prayers will be in your behalf that your talent will have great longevity.
”Press forward, hold fast, endure to the end”.
John & Brenda
LikeLike
Thanks, J&B. They definitely do take a long time. I sat at my laptop from 12pm to 9pm yesterday writing, editing, and revising the final draft (which I’ve spent the last several weeks writing) in hopes of getting it in some readable form. I was borderline delirious by the end. Haha. But I was happy to do it, mostly because I just want to move on to something else. Thanks for taking the time to read and for the support. Much appreciated.
LikeLike
Interesting account of the mummies and papyri, which is all I’ve read so far. I will read further. I recall a story about a fire that destroyed the mummies. As always, Matt, you’ve done meticulous research. Joseph Smith’s narcissism, ego, and manic high in his faked translation of the papyri and desperation to sell his translation for money reminds me that he tried to do the same with the forged Kinderhook Plates. Again, no interpreters or seer-stone. He failed to translate them and probably realized he had been tricked. He never studied how to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs. The Book of Abraham should never have been added to LDS canon and our scripture studies.
LikeLike
Thank you. He’s really something. More than a few times I just threw my hands in the air. I hope you find the rest interesting if/when you get to it.
LikeLike
Excellent work as always, Matt. I thoroughly enjoy finding these posts in my inbox. I knew most of the issues with Joseph separately, but seeing everything put together is really an eye opener. I think you hit the nail on the head with NPD. I have known several in my life and some of Joseph’s words are identical to words and phrases I have heard from these types of individuals. It’s really the only thing that makes his behavior make sense.
I would highly encourage you to write a post about why we should keep the Book of Mormon even if we throw out Joseph Smith. I agree that a work should stand on its own merits, but when Joseph Smith has been interwoven into the origins of the Book of Mormon, it’s very hard to see it that way. I have talked with a lot of people who struggle with the Book of Mormon because of Joseph Smith’s problems. They find it hard to believe someone when everything else he did in his life was a lie or extremely reprehensible. But the alternative theories about the Book of Mormon’s origins are pretty wild and somebody would have cracked at some point. For a lot of people in this brand of post-Mormonism I think the Book of Mormon is an enigma, and maybe it’s supposed to be. I think your knowledge and skill with the pen (keyboard) would bring a lot of good insight on this subject.
LikeLike
Hi, Jordan – I apologize for the late reply. For some reason your comment to the spam folder! I wasn’t ignoring you. 😉 I remember having a conversation with a friend a few years ago and I said something along the lines of, “we have to divorce Joseph Smith from the Book of Mormon. Until we do, we won’t get it.” I think the BOM is such an enigma because we read Joseph Smith and Mormonism into it when we shouldn’t. I think I mentioned it one of my posts, but the BOM has nothing good to say about the Latter-Day Saints. At all. But because the LDS don’t understand they are the Gentiles spoken of, they don’t see any need to repent and turn away from the false traditions and doctrines passed down to us.
I’ve been asked several times, “why would God choose Joseph Smith?” If God is omniscient, He must’ve known what would happen. I don’t know if this is a good answer or not, but I think about God’s relationship with Israel. Why did He choose a people who continually rejected Him for thousands of years? Jacob wrote it was necessary that Jesus came to the Israelites because no other people would crucify their God. Why would God choose Joseph Smith and the Mormons? Perhaps there was some similar reason, though I don’t know what that is or may be. But I have struggled with that question. (Honestly, I think God decided it was time to bring the BOM forth, saw Joseph Smith and said, ‘You’ll do.” I don’t think it was any more complicated than that.)
I have definitely thought about your suggestion. I really do want to get back to focusing on the Book of Mormon. I have to get the Second Comforter and proxy baptism out of the way, then I really want to get into it. For me, the most important reason to keep the Book of Mormon is that it’s testimony that Jesus Christ is, in fact, the Eternal God. That’s the most important message of all (and something Joseph Smith didn’t know or teach).
Thanks for stopping by, reading, commenting and for your encouragement. I deal with a lot of imposter syndrome, so I appreciate it.
LikeLike
Once again your research and writing is impeccable. The evidence is just too great to “give poor brother Joseph a break” anymore. Honestly, it feels good to leave all of the Joseph Smith nonsense theology behind. Thanks Matt.
LikeLike
Thanks, man. I agree. I don’t think we’ll ever outrun his shadow, but it feels good to know I don’t have to believe anything just because “Joseph said so.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s a reason trouble and calamity followed Joseph Smith throughout his life. It is not because he was God’s prophet and spoke truth. It is because he did dishonest things, cheated people and threatened people who did not agree with his demands.
The more I understand of the trajectory of Joseph Smith’s life the more I think his statements on the corrosive nature of power, as captured in Section 121 of the Doctrine & Covenants, are a self-reflection. Joseph Smith was an instrument in God’s hand. He had been a humble servant of the Lord and through him God did a great work. And then Joseph Smith allowed the cares of the world and his personal lusts to lead him astray.
But it is the myth of Joseph Smith that the LDS church celebrates. The myth has admirable qualities. It is good to believe God calls prophets in “our day” as He did in days of old. The trouble with the myth is it blinds the LDS members and leaders from a most important truth. This is that prophets are fallible. Men and women, no matter how important the work they do for God, are still mortals and risk falling into error and sin.
In the LDS church, the myth of the infallible prophet persists to the current day. It is one of the great stumbling blocks to the spiritual progression of the LDS church and people. The inability to admit wrong, the inability to embrace Repentance and Forgiveness and Grace as integral elements of the Faith, both at the personal and institutional level, prevents the church from receiving greater spiritual light. A church that believes its leaders, and not Jesus, have power over sin, is a church that will fail to receive and project the fullness of Light and Truth that Jesus offers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boy, I agree with you. There is the Joseph Smith of legend and myth and then there’s the Joseph Smith of history. You’re right, we celebrate the Joseph Smith of myth. And I think you hit on an important point that I think about a lot. According to the Book of Mormon text, the reception of the sealed portion is dependent upon Gentile (LDS) repentance. I have wondered what that might entail. Surely, it must include a complete rejection and repudiation of plural marriage/sealings in all its forms; turning away from leadership idolatry; ceasing proxy baptism and temple-building; divesting from for-profit business activities; acknowledging Joseph’s false doctrines and removing them from the various curricula; etc., etc., etc.
I’m not optimistic that happens in my lifetime, or at all. Hopefully I’m wrong, though. Thanks for dropping by and taking the time to read and comment. Appreciate it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To add to my comment, in reading further, Gov. Ford’s statement about Joseph Smith impressed me most out of other comments that you quoted in your research. You said you “no longer care about polygamy”. It’s a concern that my hubby and I have that most church members (not us) believe the teaching that polygamy will continue in the LDS version of heaven. For what purpose? Was it purely Joseph’s egocentric-manic fantasy? I think so.
LikeLike
What alarms me most is when I see comments on Facebook from men who are absolutely certain they will have many wives in this life or the next. My suspicion is that these guys some deeply ingrained insecurity and misogyny. They seem to view women as things to collect and possess and use for their pleasure.
As for Joseph, his motivation seems to stem from the New Testament passage about marriage in the next life: “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven.” I suppose one could take a charitable view that Joseph had a concern, albeit misguided, for the eternal welfare of those people and created a means (sealing) by which earthly bonds were carried over. But given his state of mind in Nauvoo, who knows. That whole period is so bizarre. I can’t envision the Mormon Experiment ending any other way than it did. I think in a lot of ways it was tragedy for most of the people involved, maybe Emma more than anyone else.
LikeLiked by 1 person