The full text of this article can be found at Deseret News online.

Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FAIR Bookstore.

Tell your friends about the Mormon FAIR-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the Mormon FAIR-Cast by subscribing to this podcast in iTunes, and by rating it and writing a review.

With that in mind, I offer for the reader’s consideration Joseph Smith: The Profile of a Prophet for those interested. Feel free to download and keep a copy if you wish.

Joseph Smith: The Profile of a Prophet

Acts 9:1-9

1And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

3And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

7And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

8And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

9And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

Acts 22:6-11

6And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.

7And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

8And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

9And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

10And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

11And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

Acts 26:12-20

12Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,

13At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

14And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

15And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

16But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

17Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,

18To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

19Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judæa, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Notice how Luke attributes additional words to the Lord Jesus to Paul in his third account than in his first two. In the first account, Jesus tells Paul to “arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do” (Acts 9:6). In the second report, Luke describes Jesus telling Paul to “arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do” (Acts 22:10). But notice in the third account how Luke quotes Jesus as saying much more to Paul than in the previous two accounts:

And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I  have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of  Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me (Acts 26:15-18).

This added information in the third report from Luke is understandable, considering the context. In Acts 26 Paul is relating to Agrippa the reason behind his imprisonment and the ruckus he had created with the Jews at the Temple. Luke reports that Paul got into hot water with his pious Jewish peers for not only preaching against the Law of Moses but also for allegedly bringing “Greeks also into the temple, and pollut[ing] this holy place” (Acts 21:28). So grievous was Paul’s perceived profaning of the temple that his zealous would-be executioners immediately took him outside the precincts of the temple to summarily dispatch him (Acts 21:30-31). Fortunately for Paul the clatter alerted the Roman authorities, who took him into their custody before he could be killed (Acts 21:32-40).

As such, Paul had a lot of explaining to do on his part. Why was he so hated amongst his Jewish peers to the point of blood lust? Furthermore, as a Jew what business did he have associating with Gentiles? Paul gives Agrippa the answer, as reported by Luke: Jesus had specifically charged Paul to witness unto the Gentiles, and to win them over from their Satanic paganism to forgiveness and sanctification through Christ. Hence, we can infer, Paul gave this additional detail to Agrippa because of its expediency and relevance to his defense before the Gentile king. It certainly would have done Paul no good to relate this revolutionary (not to mention blasphemous) information to his Jewish enemies in Acts 22. As a matter of fact, these same Jewish foes patiently listened to Paul’s story until he described a hitherto unrecorded vision in the Jerusalem temple wherein he was commissioned by the Lord to depart unto the Gentiles. Upon hearing this unbearably shocking detail they cut him off and were driven to madness as they demanded his life (Acts 22:17-22). Furthermore, Luke had no need to provide this information in Acts 9 since he has yet to detail the ministry of the Apostles to the Gentiles beginning in Acts 10. It would throw off the development of the narrative history for Luke to provide a full account of the Lord’s words to Paul before the reader even knows what is going on with the Gentiles in the first place. But, once Luke has firmly established Paul’s role as the apostle to the Gentiles, and given the immediate context of Paul’s account to Agrippa, it makes perfect sense why he would omit this information until the third account in Acts 26.

What does all this have to do with Joseph Smith’s own theophany in 1820? Critics of Joseph Smith are eager to point out that his first recorded account of his vision written in 1832 is not as detailed as his accounts written in subsequent years, especially his 1838 account that was later canonized in the Pearl of Great Price. Surely, these critics contend, Joseph Smith was evolving his story over time to suit his purposes. His story becomes grander and more spectacular with each telling, in what can only be Joseph’s desperate attempt to bolster his prophetic legitimacy in the face of widespread apostasy and doubt within the Church.

However, this argument is unwarranted, and is especially dangerous for sectarian critics of Joseph Smith. I shall allow the esteemed Professor Richard L. Anderson to explain, since he has done a better job in succinctly demonstrating the sectarians’ dilemma than I could ever hope to:

Critics love to dwell on supposed inconsistencies in Joseph Smith’s spontaneous accounts of his first vision. But people normally give shorter and longer accounts of a vivid experience that is retold more than once. Joseph Smith was cautious about public explanations of his sacred experiences until the Church grew strong and could properly publicize what God had given him. Thus his most detailed first-vision account came after several others–at the time that he began his formal history that he saw as one of the key responsibilities of his life (see JS-H 1:1 2, 17 20). In Paul’s case there is the parallel. His most detailed account of Christ’s call is the last recorded mention of several. Thus before Agrippa, Paul related how the glorified Savior first prophesied his work among the gentiles; this was told only then because Paul was speaking before a gentile audience (see Acts 26:16 – 18). Paul and Joseph Smith had reasons for delaying full details of their visions until the proper time and place.[1]

Thus, for me at least, when faced with anti-Mormon allegations against the authenticity of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, the phrase “he who lives in a glass house shouldn’t throw stones” comes to mind.

Notes:

[1]: Richard L. Anderson, Parallel Prophets: Paul and Joseph Smith.

Ron Esplin is the managing editor of The Joseph Smith Papers project and the former director of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History at BYU. The Joseph Smith Papers, The Revelations and Translations, Volume 2, Published Revelations, can be purchased at the FAIR Bookstore.

Brother Martins is the author of the book Setting the Record Straight – Blacks and the Mormon Priesthood, which can be purchased at the FAIR Bookstore.

The full text of this address can be found at FAIR LDS.

The papyri Joseph Smith used when he translated the BoA went missing for decades, but were reacquired by the LDS Church in 1967. The papyri were quickly swept up in a tornado of research. In this episode Professor Hauglid talks about criticisms and controversies surrounding the Book of Abraham. Hauglid also describes how the BoA became part of the LDS canon. In addition to some of Hauglid’s favorite devotional bits of the text, he discusses a few interesting ancient parallels.

Cosmology, astronomy, ancient parallels, parallelomania, and Doritos. All these things and more in this episode of the FAIR Podcast.

Incidentally, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship currently provides the chapters from Hauglid’s Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant online for free. Check them out here. Folks interested in learning more about the Book of Abraham might be interested to start there. A review of Hauglid’s new book is available here.

Hauglid received a BA in Near Eastern Studies from Brigham Young University and an MA and PhD from the University of Utah in Arabic and Islamic Studies. He is currently an associate professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU. Along with John Gee, Hauglid is both principal investigator and general editor of the Studies in the Book of Abraham Series.

Questions or comments about this episode can be sent to podcast@fairlds.org. Or, join the conversation in the comments here at fairblog.org.

Runtime:

55:53

Download:

To download, right click this link and select “Save link as…” or download it in iTunes here.

Support FAIR:

FAIR relies on contributions from readers and listeners. To help support FAIR, make a donation today.

Viewers who use closed captioning will be happy to learn that it’s been employed for Season 2 (although it’s a little rough in places). And I’m very happy to see that the list of episodes also says which disc they’re on this time. (Both of these things were missing for Season 1.)

There are 2 episodes about the manual containing the teachings of Joseph Smith that was used recently in priesthood and Relief Society. It begins by recounting a history of publications of his teachings, and then spends the rest of the time talking about the preparation of the new manual. It was intended not to be a comprehensive source of known teachings, but rather to be selected teachings that apply to our day. They were very careful in what was included, and the standards for determining such, which depended on the sources, were explained.

The Word of Wisdom episode was particularly interesting to me, since this topic can often be a stumbling block for people who assume that it has always been followed and enforced the way it is today. It is pointed out that the first 3 verses of D&C Section 89 were not actually part of the revelation, but were originally a preface. It is explained what the restrictions on hot drinks, alcohol, and meat meant at the time it was given. A history of the Word of Wisdom from moderation to abstinence is recounted. Unfortunately, here I feel the episode falls short. The groundwork is laid to mention that not just church members but also church leaders had difficulty with it at first, but then it doesn’t quite go that far. It can be confusing for someone that was taught that Joseph refused alcohol for his leg operation to learn that he did not always abstain (see, for instance, History of the Church, vol. 7, page 101), and I thought this episode could have done a little better towards inoculating against that.

Another interesting episode is about D&C section 76, which outlines the different degrees of glory available after this life. It was referred to originally as “The Vision,” since it was the first vision to be published (accounts of the “First Vision” were not published until later). It was one of just a few visions that had a witness – Sidney Rigdon participated in it along with Joseph Smith. Until then, the understanding of the afterlife was black and white. Those who didn’t like it considered it to be universalist. It was written down immediately by Smith and Rigdon, and because they were commanded to write it down, copies were allowed to be made freely. Joseph was probably tarred and feathered for it.

This DVD series should be of interest to anyone that enjoys church history or is interested in learning about it. There is some that is glossed over – such is the nature of the medium – but this is the most in-depth and accurate treatment of Joseph Smith and the early history of the church that has been made available for viewing, and it could even lead those that don’t particularly like non-fiction reading to do further research.

Runtime:

41:56

Download:

To download, right click this link and select “Save link as…” or download in iTunes here.

Support FAIR:

FAIR relies on contributions from readers and listeners. To help support FAIR, make a donation today.

Runtime:

47:51

Download:

To download, right click this link and select “Save link as…” or download in iTunes here.

Support FAIR:

FAIR relies on contributions from readers and listeners. To help support FAIR, make a donation today.

On a popular level, the folk apologetic has been accompanied by misleading statistics that downplay the rates at which plural marriage was practiced. A corrected ballpark figure has 15-20% of married Mormon men engaged in the practice during the Deseret era. Speculation runs rampant that a shortage of males was created by persecution caused deaths. However, such casualties were more likely to because of forced winter marches and hence not skewed towards one of the genders.

Despite these shortcomings and dismissal by many who consider themselves properly informed, it turns out that the original assertion is correct. There was a shortage of Mormon men! I will not only establish that below, but I will also advance two solid hypotheses on why the shortage existed.

In an earlier essay, I took a shot at explaining the lack of a “lost boys” phenomenon in 19^th century Utah. Looking at the 1880 Census data, I found that Utah women were being married much more efficiently than their US peers, while Utah men eventually married at about the same rate as their US peers. Utah demographics were found to support high rates of plural marriage for men because 1) Utah women were married efficiently, 2) Utah had a relatively high rate of natural increase creating a wide population pyramid, and 3) under these Utah conditions, increasing the age gap between spouses created an artificial surplus of women.

That analysis likewise presents a rationale for suspending plural marriage. In today’s world we observe increased life expectancies, delayed entry into marriage to pursue educational opportunities, greater economic independence for women, large age gaps between couples becoming less acceptable, and less importance placed on having large families. Of course, whether in 19^th century or now, it is necessary for a polygamous community to isolate itself from the dominant values of its ambient society.  However, inasmuch as Mormon fundamentalists practice arranged marriages and outcast young single men to sustain plural marriage, they appear be addressing a shortage of female marriage partners on levels that their Deseret era predecessors did not.

In my zeal to refute old anti-Mormon accusations that Deseret era missionaries specifically targeted female converts to bring them captive to polygamous harems in Utah, I resisted the notion that missionary work facilitated polygamy. I reasoned that converts would be equally male and female and that older couples would not contribute to natural increase as much as, say, a second generation Mormon. Subsequent investigation of statistics such as those tabulated below shows that a significant surplus of women emigrated to Utah as the fruits of missionary, but their presence is masked the presence of non-Mormons (a small ~20% of the population with a large marriage-aged male disparity [4]) and the rising second generation of Mormons (birth rates make a large % of the population and slightly favor males).

Anti-Mormon Propaganda

Table 1. Sex Ratios and Marriage Statistics [5]

In the first column of the table, overall sex ratios SR are reported. For example, there were roughly 104 males for every 100 females in the US in 1880. The sex ratio at birth has historically ranged from 102-106 [6]. However, other factors besides native births contribute to the overall sex ratio. For regions in the US, migration played a significant role. Horace Greeley’s admonish “Go west, young man” appropriately captures the demographic of a migrating individual. There was more than 2:1 male to female ratio in the frontier mountain states (NM had been settled a while longer and was thus more family friendly).

The second column uses Kathryn Daynes’s range for prime marrying age sex ratio (PMASR) of 15-29. She found that PMASR was generally more favorable towards women in 1860, 1870, and 1880 census years (93, 100, 105) than the overall sex ratio (101, 99, 107) [7]. As a slight refinement, I calculated a staggered prime marrying age sex ratio (SPMASR) as well: (86, 86, 90). SPMASR compares the number of males aged 20-34 to females aged 15-29 [8]. This helps capture the five year difference in male and female ages at first marriage (estimated in the 4^th and 5^th column by the singulate mean age at marriage (SMAM )). Finally I calculated the SR (96, 97, 101) and PMASR (87, 94, 100) for foreign borns [9] in Utah for comparison with my classification of almost 90,000 names in the Mormon Immigration Index CD.

The adoption of plural marriage prevented a disaster.  As seen above, a moderate surplus of Mormon women and an overwhelming surplus of non-Mormon men would have made large numbers of inter-religious marriages virtually inevitable. For some Mormon females, plural marriage was a much better option than remaining single for life (like many of their west European peers did) or marrying outside her faith.  Interfaith marriages, like other assimilating influences, were important to avoid while young Mormon religious community tried to establish its own identity.

Two Hypotheses

The surplus of Mormon women was the fruits of missionary work, especially in western Europe. The pre-dominance of women in the Mormon Immigration Index can be explained by a combination of two hypotheses.

1.      The demographics of converts will match the demographics of their ambient society.

2.      Women join new, charismatic religious movements in disproportionate numbers.

While the 1^st hypothesis is a default assumption, the 2^nd hypothesis was presented by none other than Rodney Stark [10]. He wrote:

The ancient sources and modern historians agree that primary conversion to Christianity was far more prevalent among females than among males. Moreover, this appears to be typical of new religious movements in recent times. By examining manuscript census returns for the latter half of the nineteenth century, Bainbridge (1982) found that approximately two-thirds of the Shakers were female. Data on religious movements included in the 1926 census of religious bodies show that 75 percent of Christian Scientists were women, as were more than 60 percent of Theosophists, Swedenborgians, and Spiritualists (Stark and Bainbridge 1985). The same is true of the immense wave of Protestant conversions taking place in Latin America.

As judged by Mormon Immigration Index results, western Europe convert sex ratios take on an intermediate value between their ambient countries (represented by Sweden and England in the table above) and the lofty numbers Stark collected for other religious movements. Mormon missionaries were instructed to let God select the elect and warned about specifically targeting attractive on at least one occasion. One might speculate that plural marriage diminished some enthusiasm among European women to convert to Mormonism.   If greater numbers of women had converted without plural marriage, it would have been very difficult to accommodate them in harsh, frontier Utah.

In conclusion, a Mormon male shortage in Utah in consistent with the 1) the assumption that non-Mormon demographics in Utah follow that found in other frontier western states and 2) foreign converts contributed a significant amount to Mormon demographics and were moderately stacked towards women. The Deseret Saints believed that plural marriage was commanded by God, while not fully comprehending the reasons why. Even if it is stretch to argue that divine foresight anticipated and prepared for frontier conditions in the Kirtland era, providing for the spiritual and physical welfare of the surplus female converts at least seems like a positive side effect.

Notes

[1] John Widtsoe wrote in Evidences and Reconciliations: “Plural marriage has been a subject of wide and frequent comment. Members of the Church unfamiliar with its history, and many non-members, have set up fallacious reasons for the origin of this system of marriage among the Latter-day Saints.

“The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seem always to have been more males than females in the Church. Families — father, mother, and children — have most commonly joined the Church. Of course, many single women have become converts, but also many single men.

“The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States, as would be expected in a pioneer state. The births within the Church obey the usual population law — a slight excess of males. Orson Pratt, writing in 1853 from direct knowledge of Utah conditions, when the excess of females was supposedly the highest, declares against the opinion that females outnumbered the males in Utah. (The Seer, p. 110) The theory that plural marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female Church members fails from lack of evidence.”

[2] I am looking in your direction, i4m.com

[3] I highly recommend Hales’s website http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/ to my readers.

[4] Dean May estimated 21% of Utah’s 1880 census population was non-Mormon Dean L. May, “A Demographic Portrait of the Mormons, 1830-1980,” in After 150 Years: The Latter-day Saints in Sesquicentennial Perspective, edited by Thomas G.”Alexander and Jessie L. Embry, Charles Redd Monographs in Western History No.”13 (Midvale, Utah: Signature Books for Charles Redd Center for Western Studies) p. 51, 67 cited in Kathryn Daynes, “Single Men in Polygamous Society: Male Marriage Patterns in Manti, Utah” in Journal of Mormon History 24 (Spring 1998), p. 89-111

[5] The tabulated values for US, Utah, and Mountain States sex ratios come from Volume 1. Statistics of the Population of the United States available at http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/1880.html . For the same areas SMAM and never married % come from IPUMS. For Sweden sex ratios come from data provided by http://www.scb.se/Pages/ProductTables____25809.aspx, while ancestry.com was used to extract the same for England. SMAMs for the two countries provided by Michael R. Haines, “Long Term Marriage Patterns in the United States from Colonial Times to the Present,” National Bureau of Economic Research (Cambridge, MA), NBER Working Paper Series, (Historical Paper No. 80. 1996):15-39.  Guinanne, Timothy W., 1997, The Vanishing Irish: Household Migration and the rural Economy in Ireland,1850-1914. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ. p. 96. Sex ratios for Mormon immigrants used the Mormon Immigration Index CD and relied on sites like nordicnames.com to classify gender.

[6] by Lee L. Bean, Geraldine P. Mineau, Douglas L. Anderton , Fertility Change on the American Frontier: Adaptation and Innovation p. 79 This fact suggests caution against the folk wisdom that women will out-number men in the Celestial Kingdom thus justifying a rationale for widespread polygamy in the afterlife. For a more devastating critique, see Valerie Hudson Cassler, “Polygamy” SquareTwo 3:1 (2010)

[7] Daynes also finds evidence for a surplus of Mormon women in the predominantly Mormon community of Manti PMASR (84, 81, 89) and in endowment records (77, 73, 83)

[8] The idea to use a staggered range for men and women occurred to me after reading Joshua Angrist, “How Do Sex Ratios Affect Marriage andLabor Markets? Evidence from America’s Second Generation” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2002, v107(3,Aug) . Angrist uses a more appropriate range for the early 20^th Century with a smaller SMAM gap (men: 20-35, female: 18-33). I used ancestry.com’s census search capabilities to break down Utah’s population by sex and age.

[9] I again used ancestry.com and estimated the number of foreign-born by subtract US-born from the total. However this classifies unrecorded birthplaces as foreign which makes my estimates on the conservative side. In 1860, Utah territory included counties that were later annexed to Nevada (Carson, St. Mary’s, and Humboldt) and Wyoming (Green River) that I eliminated. However, I did not eliminate counties that straddled later state boundaries. This means that Utah’s actual sex ratios are slightly lower than the figures I provide, but probably not more than 1%.

[10] Rodney Stark, “Reconstructing the rise of Christianity: The role of women” Sociology of Religion.  Fall 1995.  Vol. 56,  Iss. 3,  p. 229

I am a Prophet of God in this dispensation. I carry on the work that began with Joseph Smith. I led the Saints to the barren Salt Lake Valley and it is where we built Zion, even though Joseph Smith taught the Savior would return in Jackson County Missouri. Monogamous marriage is not the order of heaven, for it is only through polygamy that a man may achieve exaltation. The government should stay out of the lives of the Saints and let us worship and practice our religion according to the dictates of our own conscience. If there ever comes a day when the Saints interfere with the rights of others to live as they see fit, you can know with assurance that the Church is no longer led by a Prophet, but a mere man. The doctrines of this Church are eternal, for they were ordained before the world was and any man who changes these doctrines such as the temple ceremony, or the man who abandons polygamy, or allows blacks the Priesthood of God, is a fallen prophet.

I am Brother Brigham. And I am the voice of God.

The blog does not provide a citation for the quote. This is nothing more than a clumsy mashup of virtually every controversial subject on which Brigham ever spoke: Zion, polygamy, church and state, authoritarianism, the temple, and blacks and priesthood. And there’s an oblique reference to Proposition 8, too.

Normally this kind of juvenile prank would be ignored, but the quote was posted to a high-traffic discussion site for ex-Mormons, and now is being blogged and shared through Facebook.

FAIR volunteers have searched electronic databases of all of Brigham Young’s recorded sermons — the Journal of Discourses, the Deseret News, the 6-volume Brigham Young Addresses, and early Church newspapers — and have not found anything like this coming from Brigham’s mouth.

This quote is a hoax. Please pass the word.

For more, see the FAIR wiki:

• FAIR Wiki: Brigham Young: “I have never given counsel that is wrong.”

__________

Update: The original blog owner has admitted that the quote is a fake, but that it is “merely words that sum up [Brigham's] doctrine and [Brigham's] teachings.”

William Schryver’s presentation on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers received some press before the conference, and did not disappoint. You can view it here. (A browser plug-in may be required.)

There have been articles about many of the presentations published in Mormon Times, Deseret News, and LDS Church News:

• FAIR conference: Same-sex marriage and the role of religion
• FAIR conference: Secret Mormon codes and Egyptian papers
• FAIR conference: LDS doctrine clear on divinity of one God
• FAIR conference: ‘Gender equality is the brick of Zion,’ speaker says
• FAIR conference: What if the U.S. president were a Mormon?
• FAIR conference: Joseph Smith’s discovery of ancient patterns
• FAIR Conference: Roper’s take on Book of Mormon geography
• Mormons need to work to increase favor
• FAIR conference: Defend the Book of Mormon by studying names, origins
• Nibley editor says scholar was bolstered by research
• ‘Be Ready’ to Defend Faith

Transcripts will be posted at http://www.fairlds.org when they are ready. MP3s and DVDs will be made available for purchase at the FAIR bookstore.

Among the Saints we have our regulars: The Three Nephites picked up as hitch-hikers. Comedian and actor Steven Martin seen wearing a CTR ring. A prophecy of the Restoration by an 18th-century Catholic priest.

Perhaps the best-known of these has the imprimatur of a modern apostle: The idea that Cain, son of Adam and Eve and the first murderer, still walks the earth today.

Now, nowhere in scripture, ancient or modern, is it declared that Cain would or did live beyond his mortal years. No mention is made of his death, but we do read of Lamech, Cain’s great-great-great-grandson, who made the same covenant with Satan that Cain did. This covenant is described as being had “from [or since] the days of Cain,” which seems to indicate that Cain was dead by this time. (See Moses 5:51.)

In any case, the scripture is ambiguous, and so the door is left open for all kinds of speculation about what happened to the man from the land of Nod. And hence began a Mormon urban legend.

The notion that Cain somehow lived on, survived the Flood, and roams the earth today, is based on a single claim of David W. Patten supposedly meeting “a very strange personage,” dark and hairy, who “was a wanderer in the earth and and traveled to and fro.” (Thus managing to tie Cain to another popular urban legend: Bigfoot.)

This account was published in a biography of Patten written by Lycurgus Wilson in 1900. Wilson had a letter from Abraham Smoot giving his recollection of what Patten said. In historical parlance this is what is called a late, third-hand account—the sort of thing most historians would dismiss. This kind of testimony is simply unreliable, tainted by the passage of time and the fog of memory.

The story probably would have been forgotten if then-Elder Spencer W. Kimball hadn’t included it on pages 127–28 of The Miracle of Forgiveness. Kimball’s book has become a staple of Mormon reading, the book that many bishops give to members struggling with sin and many mission presidents assign their missionaries to read.

The passage where Kimball quotes Wilson is really unnecessary to the chapter itself, which is about unforgivable sins, including murder. He cites several examples of murderers in the scriptures, beginning with Cain. He then throws in, almost as a passing idea, “an interesting story” about Cain.

And so, quite innocently, Spencer W. Kimball perpetuated a Mormon myth that could (and should) have died out long ago.

At the priesthood session of the most recent General Conference, Elder Dallin H. Oaks gave a very practical talk on Healing the Sick that I believe is worth reading by everyone.

And in 1996, the Journal of Mormon History published an interesting article by William G. Hartley about the historical development of the duties of the Aaronic priesthood: From Men to Boys: LDS Aaronic Priesthood Offices, 1829-1996.

Terryl L. Givens

Dr. Terryl L. Givens sat down with host Blair Hodges during the Mormon Scholars Foundation Summer Seminar at Brigham Young University. Blair uses selections from Givens’s books as jumping off points for further discussion on a wide array of subjects, including: nineteenth-century anti-Mormon literature, the Book of Mormon, prisca theologia, the paradox of searching and certainty, recent developments in Mormon studies, Parley P. Pratt, the preexistence, globalization, thoughtful faith, and dealing with difficult historical and theological puzzles.

Questions about this episode and ideas for future episodes can be added to the comments section here, or emailed to podcast@fairlds.org.

Dr. Terrl L. Givens is Professor of Literature and Religion at the University of Richmond. He has authored several books, including The Viper on the Hearth: Mormons, Myths, and the Construction of Heresy (Oxford 1997); By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (Oxford 2003); People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture (Oxford 2007); The Book of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford 2009); and When Souls had Wings: Pre-Mortal Life in Western Thought (2010). His current projects include a biography of Parley P. Pratt (with Matt Grow, to be published by Oxford in 2011), a sourcebook of Mormonism in America (with Reid Neilson, to be published by Columbia in 2011), a history of Mormon theology (with Steven Harper), and a study of the idea of human perfectibility in the Western tradition. He lives in Montpelier, Virginia.

(Image and info from http://terrylgivens.com/)

Download:

To download, right click this link and select “Save link as…” or download in iTunes here.

Runtime:

55:26

Support FAIR:

FAIR relies on contributions from readers and listeners. To help support FAIR, make a donation today.

Blacks and the Priesthood

Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood

The Place of Mormon Women: Perceptions, Prozac, Polygamy, Priesthood, Patriarchy, and Peace

Christians don’t need a mediating priesthood

Priesthood/Non-transferable

Is there a “Priesthood of All Believers”?

Priesthood/Restoration

Hebrews 7 and the Aaronic priesthood

Date of the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood

Priesthood/What does the Bible teach?

People outside of Utah, upon hearing about it, immediately began wondering when (or even if) they would have a chance to see the series. It was quickly ascertained that KJZZ would not be providing it for viewing on their web site as some hoped, but eventually BYUTV picked it up. Today, season 1 can be watched on BYUTV and Utah viewers can see season 2 (now in reruns) on KJZZ. And now (as of 2009), season 1 is available on a 7 disc DVD set from Deseret Book.

The set contains 52 episodes, numbered from 0 to 51, which are about one half hour each, except for number 0 which was the longer pilot that was aired ahead of time. A booklet is included that gives a brief summary of each episode and lists the contributing scholars, along with an index. Unfortunately, it does not state which DVDs contain which episodes, so I ended up noting that myself in my copy. Each DVD contains a message at the beginning apologizing that the sound and video quality are not always perfect, but the one big drawback of this set is a total lack of closed captions. Anyone that can’t hear will not be able to watch it, and even for those of us who are able to hear, it would have been nice to be able to read what is being said at times, particularly when trying to take notes.

Season 1 is filmed at historic sites as well as in a studio, using visual aids ranging from photographs, to paintings, to the actual writings of Joseph Smith and others. It includes interviews with scholars such as Ronald Barney, Richard Bushman, Steven Harper, Richard Turley, Richard Anderson, Larry Porter, Milton Backman, Robin Jensen, Jeffrey Walker, Jill Derr, Royal Skousen, Mark Staker, Dean Jessee, Carol Madsen, and many others.

In the pilot episode, Ronald Esplin (managing editor of The Joseph Smith Papers) said, “I think in today’s world, every Latter-day Saint will encounter things about Joseph Smith they didn’t know before. We have an informational overload – informational access – that has never been available before, and to the degree that Latter-day Saints are left only with what they learn at Pioneer Day, they are going to be vulnerable, because there is so much more to learn. And I think it’s very important that we come to a true understanding of our history, and of our people, that involves dealing with all the issues, and dealing with all the personalities, and doing it broadly so that we understand our own heritage, and then we will not be overturned by some new little fact that we didn’t have room for in our scheme, because we prepared ourselves to look at the whole picture.”

Many of the other episodes in the series are spent giving us this understanding, beginning with familiarizing us with early 19th century America and Joseph Smith’s heritage and local environment, and then going through many of the events in Joseph’s life and the history of the church, and then his death and the aftermath. A good job was done in many areas where the church has been accused by critics of hiding information. For example, the different versions of the First Vision are discussed, and there is a very good history and explanation given of the Book of Abraham and associated papyri.

However, one weakness that stuck out to me was that the discussion of plural marriage was not as thorough as it might have been. The host, Glenn Rawson, was kind enough to answer my question about that: “Our discussion of Plural marriage was limited of necessity. We could only say what we could prove by reliable documentation and only a small portion of that. It was the first in-depth broadcast statement on the subject of plural marriage that had been done under Church auspices. We tried to be careful and circumspect.” Indeed, it is significant that plural marriage was discussed to the depth that it was.

There are a couple of episodes devoted to a roundtable discussion featuring members of the Papers staff explaining what the project is all about, and the significance for members and nonmembers alike. There is an episode about the medical aspects of Joseph’s leg operation. Separate episodes are devoted to the revelations and sermons of Joseph Smith, respectively. There are also episodes covering Joseph’s encounters with the law.

To give an example of some interesting points covered in a typical episode, in episode 7 (“The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon”) we are told that in the early 20th century, a farmer filled in the depression on the hill where the plates had been stored, because he was tired of people coming on his land to see it. It is pointed out that those who knew Joseph best believed him the most. And we are told that Joseph said he could see anything through seer stones.

There is much to learn about the history of the Church up through the 1840s, and this DVD set does a good job of helping to provide a foundation for more in-depth learning, and “to look at the whole picture.” It also helps the viewer have a better understanding of some of what is being published as part of the Joseph Smith Papers. This set would be excellent for use in Family Home Evening, as well as for personal study. Season 2 will also be out on DVD shortly, which Rawson told me covers some of the potentially troubling issues more thoroughly, and he also mentioned that season 3, entitled “History of the Saints: Gathering to the West” will begin airing on KSL and KIDK (Idaho Falls) TV the weekend of General Conference in October.

Your thoughts on this issue are welcome and invited. Please comment at M*.

Smith received a medical degree (after also studying physiology and English) at the University of Alberta. He completed his medical residency in Montréal, Québec before becoming an “old-style country doctor” in rural Alberta. His interests include internal medicine and psychiatry.

Previously, Smith has spoken to the Miller-Eccles study group on the topic of plural marriage. He’s also published several articles in the FARMS Review and edited countless FAIRwiki pages. His 2009 FAIR Conference presentation, “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Plural Marriage* (*but were afraid to ask),” can be read here.

Questions about this episode and ideas for future episodes can be emailed to podcast@fairlds.org.

Download:

To download, right click this link and select “Save link as.” The episode is also now available on iTunes.

Runtime:

38:45

Support FAIR:

FAIR relies on contributions from readers and listeners. To help support FAIR, make a donation today.

As a reminder, “If you have been called to teach a quorum or class using [the Gospel Principles] book, do not substitute outside materials, however interesting they may be. Stay true to the scriptures and the words in the book. As appropriate, use personal experiences and articles from Church magazines to supplement the lessons.” (“Introduction,” Gospel Principles, (2009), pg. 3.) The resources provided here are not meant to replace or supplement the prescribed lesson material, but are for use in personal study and to help provide background knowledge for answering any issues that may arise in class.

The Scriptures Are Available to Us Today
Open canon vs. closed canon
Supposed contradictions in the scriptures
The Mistakes of Men: Can the Scriptures be Error-Free?

The Bible
The Corruption of Scripture in the Second Century
As Far as it is Translated Correctly: The Problem of Tampering with the Word of God in the Transmission and Translation of the New Testament
FAIR wiki
FAIR Topical Guide

The Book of Mormon
Joseph the Seer—or Why Did He Translate With a Rock in His Hat?
Science and the Book of Mormon
Mormon’s Editorial Method and Meta-Message
A Real People, Time, and Place: Contextualizing the Book of Mormon
A Social History of the Early Nephites
The Gadianton Robbers in Mormon’s Theological History: Their Structural Role and Plausible Identification
Changes in the Book of Mormon
Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations
The Children of Lehi: DNA and the Book of Mormon
DNA and the Book of Mormon
Monotheism, Messiah, and Mormon’s Book
The Case for Historicity: Discerning the Book of Mormon’s Production Culture
Explaining Away the Book of Mormon Witnesses
Debating the Foundations of Mormonism: The Book of Mormon and Archaeology
The Protean Joseph Smith
Arabia and the Book of Mormon
FAIR wiki
FAIR Topical Guide

The Doctrine and Covenants
I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church
Dispelling the Black Myth
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Plural Marriage* (*but were afraid to ask)
The Reliability of Mormon History Produced by the LDS Church
FAIR Topical Guide – Blacks and the Priesthood
FAIR wiki – Blacks and the Priesthood
FAIR wiki – Polygamy
FAIR Topical Guide – Polygamy
FAIR wiki – Doctrine and Covenants
FAIR Topical Guide – Doctrine and Covenants

The Pearl of Great Price
Revised or Unaltered? Joseph Smith’s Foundational Stories
Book of Abraham 201: Papyri, Revelation, and Modern Egyptology
The Larger Issue
The Message of the Joseph Smith Translation: A Walk in the Garden
Adam in Ancient Texts and the Restoration
FAIR wiki – First Vision
FAIR Topical Guide – First Vision
FAIR wiki – Pearl of Great Price
FAIR Topical Guide – Pearl of Great Price

Words of Our Living Prophets
Statements by Church leaders
Revelation after Joseph Smith
Journal of Discourses
FAIR Topical Guide

Studying the Scriptures
The Impact of Mormon Critics on LDS Scholarship
The Fallacy of Fundamentalist Assumptions
“Uh oh!” to “Ah ha!” in Apologetics: 20/20 Foresight for a Faithful Future in Defending the Church
Spiritual Experiences as the Basis for Belief and Commitment
“Believest thou…?”: Faith, Cognitive Dissonance, and the Psychology of Religious Experience
What I Learned about Life, the Church, and the Cosmos from Hugh Nibley

No more prophets after Christ?

The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy

Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets

Did Joseph Smith make false prophecies?

What is “Official” LDS Doctrine?

Statements by Church Leaders

When the Prophet Speaks, Is the Thinking Done?

Do Mormons blindly follow their leaders and simply do what they’re told?

Authoritarianism and Church Leaders

Reviewed by Trevor Holyoak

As a youth, I got to know Joseph Smith a little through reading things such as Joseph Smith History in The Pearl of Great Price, Truth Restored, and parts of the Documentary History of the Church. I then got to know the prophet better as a missionary by listening to bootleg tapes of Joseph Smith the Prophet by Truman Madsen that were passed around the mission. I enjoyed them so much that when I returned home, I bought a legitimate set of the tapes.

The lecture tapes (there is now a CD set available) were recordings of lectures given by Madsen at BYU Education Week. In the introduction to the book, he says that he was able to express things through the medium of the tape recording in ways that are not possible through the written word. However, his conversational style does remain largely intact in the book. As I read it, I can hear his voice in my mind, although it is not quite a verbatim transcript of the recorded lectures. A definite advantage of the written word is that there are footnotes and sources given.

The book version of the lectures was originally published in 1989 and is still in print. This new illustrated version contains the same text, but it is done in a nice eight inch by ten inch cloth hardcover with embossed lettering and a color portrait of Joseph Smith on the front, with a dust jacket that has a cutout so the portrait shows through. There is also a ribbon included for use as a bookmark. It appears to have been made for display, perhaps on a stand, although it might also look good on a coffee table, in spite of its smaller size than would be typical for that purpose.

The illustrations are by well known artists such as Del Parson, Greg Olson, Al Rounds, Liz Lemon Swindle, and others. Some of them help you get a better feel for the scene they represent, while others tend to idealize Joseph more than he probably would have been comfortable with. One of them is likely downright inaccurate, with Joseph reading the gold plates with his fingers tracing the characters as one might read a regular book.

Those that are not familiar with the lectures should know that this is not a comprehensive biography of Joseph Smith. It leaves out many things, but is a good introduction to the life and personality of the prophet from which an interest may be cultivated for a more complete analysis, such as Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling. It contains eight chapters that explore different aspects of the prophet’s life. These are The First Vision and Its Aftermath; Joseph’s Personality and Character; Joseph Smith and Spiritual Gifts; Joseph Smith and Trials; Joseph Smith and the Kirtland Temple; Joseph Smith as Teacher, Speaker, and Counselor; Doctrinal Development and the Nauvoo Era; and The Last Months and Martyrdom.

This would be a good book for LDS families to have in their homes. Smaller children can look at the pictures (although some explanation may be necessary, as previously mentioned), and the text will be easily understood by older children, yet still hold the interest of adults. If you have not yet experienced Joseph Smith through the eyes of Truman Madsen, I highly recommend it, either with this edition or with the less expensive book or CD set available. And if you have already enjoyed the lectures – whether through audio or the previously available book, or both – this edition makes a very nice tribute to Truman Madsen and could make an excellent addition to your library.

Some have argued the original version of Zelph which was recorded was actually corrected by Joseph Smith, and it was the flawed account that made it into the History of the Church, thereby casting doubt of it’s accuracy. While there were changes in the Zelph story2, they do not change the basis of the claims of the incident that there were Lamanites and Prophets in North America.

John A. Widstoe believed Zelph to have no bearing on Book of Mormon geography. He stated:

“This is not of much value in Book of Mormon geographical studies, since Zelph probably dated from a later time when Nephites and Lamanites had been somewhat dispersed and wandered over the country.” 3

I find it interesting that Joseph Smith never specifically mentioned the Zelph incident to anyone. He may have been referencing the incident when he wrote Emma the following day about wandering the “plains of the Nephites” 4 and picking up skulls as an authenticity of The Book of Mormon, but never mentions an ancient warrior named Zelph and a previously unknown prophet Onandagus. This private letter from Joseph Smith is the closest we have of Joseph Smith recording the event.

“The longest and most detailed near-contemporaneous account of Zelph’s discovery was written by Levi Hancock” 5 In his version, he makes mention that Joseph Smith stated, while under inspiration, that “This land was called the Land of Desolation” 6. If Joseph Smith was speaking about the same “Desolation” mentioned in The Book of Mormon, this would place Zarahemla, Bountiful, Manti, and most other Book of Mormon cities south of this area (this would be about where Valley City, Illinois now is), and would place The Book of Mormon to far south for a Great Lakes geography. If one accepts the Zelph accounts as fact, they must also accept the implications of the story as well. By placing the land Desolation in Illinois, you automatically place most of The Book of Mormon events South of there, thereby eliminating many North American as plausible theories.

So what are we to think of Zelph? There are a few options. Either those events mentioned by Joseph Smith transpired from the last battles as the Nephites were being pushed Northward by the Lamanites, or, there were Nephites and dissenters of those who took on the name Lamanites, who had migrated North from Nephite lands. Fletcher Hammond argued that “it is possible and quite probable, that sometime during the Book of Mormon history, some adventurous Nephites and Lamanites settled in what is now the western plains of the United States, the Mississippi Valley, and as far north as the Great Lakes region. But, no account of what they did was important enough for Mormon to include it in the abridgment of the Large Plates of Nephi.”7

Another scholar asks: “Why were the prominent chieftain Zelph and the great Prophet Onandagus, who was known from the eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains, not mentioned at all in the Book of Mormon? Surely a prophet of such prominence would have received some notice had he been known to the historians of the Book of Mormon. The answer is very obvious:—Because the Book of Mormon historians who were down in Central America, knew nothing at all of either the Prophet Onandagus or [of] the Chieftain Zelph. It was more than 400 years before Mormon’s time that Hagoth sailed north, and we only have a report of the first ship returning. . . . Naturally, both Mormon and Moroni were too far removed from Onandagus and Zelph to report them.” 8

This would seem to make more sense. The Book of Mormon speaks about several migrations to the North. Alma 63:4-9 recounts the migration of “five-thousand and four hundred men, with their wives and their children” from Zarahemla to the land which was “northward”. That same year, Hagoth built a “large ship” and sailed “into the land northward”. That ship returned and was filled again, as well as many “other” ships that were built and again sailed “northward”. In the thirty-ninth year, another ship sailed northward carrying provisions to those who had previously left, and it did not return.

So where were these tens of thousands of these people going? It is possible that they migrated to areas which Joseph Smith was claiming as Nephites existed. There is evidence of contact and migrations between Mesoamerica and what is now known as the United States dating to Book of Mormon time periods. There was trade between Mesoamerica and Eastern U.S. possibly as early as 200 B.C. 9 Perhaps rumor came back to the Nephites from these traders about a land with good soil, and milder summers to cause these mass migrations northward. It would also seem fitting that many people would want to find a new land to live in after years of bloodshed in war with the Lamanites. They may have wanted to escape the continuous warring and move to a new land to find peace. Whatever the reason may have been, thousands of Nephites departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and moved northward. It is also interesting that there was a major influence of Mesoamerican social ideas, building structures 10, “And there are similarities between certain religious beliefs, legends, origin of stories, and symbols of the eastern Woodlands and Mesoamerica.” 11

One scholar “wondered if Mississippian culture spread up the Mississippi floodplain carried on the backs of “southern traders” who moved along a riverine “highway” that might even have seen some travelers from Mesoamerica. Certainly there are many known instances in other parts of the world of dramatic political events and the founding of dynasties associated with the arrival of foreign lords or “stranger-kings” who immigrated to new lands and super-imposed their wills and sense of order over those already there.”12 While the Mississippian culture post-dates Book of Mormon times, the knowledge of these routes may have been well known in Book of Mormon times. Trade had been happening between Mesoamerica and North America for centuries before the Lehites even entered the Americas. There is evidence of similar migrations of traders from Mexico who settled in North-Eastern Louisiana at a place called “Poverty Point” (1650-700 B.C.), pre-dating The Book of Mormon by at least one-hundred years.

“Archaeologist James A. Ford contends that the site (Poverty Point) flourished during a pivotal era, when hunting and dispersed small camps were giving way to farming and settled towns. Ford also suggests that Poverty Point was settled by Mexican Indian Traders who crossed over by way of the Gulf of Mexico.”13

We also have Mesoamerican influence in North American cultures that are contemporary with The Book of Mormon. These same cultures (namely the Hopewell) have been thought by some North American Theorists, to be Book of Mormon peoples.

“the early appearance of Mesoamerican cultigens in eastern North America raises the question of whether the emergence of ranked societies, first in the Ohio valley (Adena and Hopewell), then in the Mississippi Valley, would have occurred if there had not been significant influences from the south. At Present, the paucity of maize finds in Ohio and Illinois Hopewell sites suggests that cultivation of Mesoamerican crops was a minor part of Hopewellian subsistence base. Few other traits of Hopewell culture appear to be specifically Mexican; copper ear spools and panpipes might be markers of southern influence.”14

It should also be noted that the Zelph Mound had some archaeological excavations in the 1870’s and 1880’s and many relics were found, as well as finding “some connection with other geographic areas such as Michigan and Mexico.”15 If this is the case, and there were Mesoamerican migrations and influence up the Mississippi to the Hopewell and other cultures, then Joseph Smith would have been 100% correct in his assertions of Book of Mormon peoples living in North America. These people would have been satellite groups of the Nephites/Lamanites and not necessarily have been the same groups recorded in The Book of Mormon. 16

—————————— .
1. Zelph,” Book of Mormon Referenece Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2007), pg. 801-802

2. Kenneth W. Godfrey, “What is the Significance of Zelph In The Study Of Book of Mormon Geography?,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/2 (1999): 70–79.
3. John A. Widstoe, The Improvement Era, July 1950, pg 547
4. Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1984) pg 324
5. Kenneth W. Godfrey, What is the Significance of Zelph in the Study of Book of Mormon Geography? Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Volume – 8, Issue – 2, Pages: Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1999, 70-79
6. Levi Hancock Journal, LDS Church Archives.
7. Fletcher B. Hammond, Geography of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Utah Printing, 1959), 151—52.
8. Norman C. Pierce, Another Cumorah: Another Joseph (n.p.: Pierce, 1954), 35–36.
9. “Maize (Zea mays), the first Mesoamerican domesticate to reach ENA (Eastern North America), did not arrive for another 1,500 years, at ≈200 B.C.” (Bruce D. Smith et. Al., “Initial formation of an indigenous crop complex in eastern North America at 3800 B.P” PNAS 2009 106:6561-6566
10. Unmasking the Maya: The Story of Sna Jtz’ibajom, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Department of Anthropology. On-line at http://anthropology.si.edu/maya/mayaprint.html (last accessed 30 May 2008).
11. Timothy R. Pauketat, Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians, Cambridge University press, pg 72. It should be noted that the Cahokia post-date Book of Mormon peoples, but it does not negate an earlier Mesoamerican influence. It would take hundreds of years to influence a large culture with new beliefs.
12. Ibid.
13. Peter Nabokov, Native American Architecture, (Oxford University Press US, 1989) pg. 97
14. Stuart J. Fiedel, Prehistory of the Americas, (Cambridge University Press, 1992) pg. 353
15. Donald Q. Cannon, Church History Regional Studies, BYU Department of Church History and Doctrine, Regional Studies, Illinois,-Zelph Revisited, 97-109
16. see also Donald Q. Cannon, Church History Regional Studies, BYU Department of Church History and Doctrine, Regional Studies, Illinois,-Zelph Revisited, 97-109, FAIRs review of “DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography” http://www.fairlds.org/DNA_Evidence_for_Book_of_Mormon_Geography/DEBMG03F.pdf accessed May 21, 2009, Kenneth W. Godfrey, “The Zelph Story,” BYU Studies (Spr 1989): 31-56

I have made note of several statements made in Joseph Smiths lifetime on geography of The Book of Mormon, from Joseph Smith, Apostles and other leaders, those whom he allowed to publish in the Times and Seasons, and other Church publications, statements Joseph Smith made to others, and some newspapers which recorded what early missionaries were teaching about it. I have not included quotes that use terms like “this continent”2, “this country”3, and “This land”4, as the only designation to geography of The Book of Mormon, because these terms were used sometimes to denote North America, and other times Central America. Cumorah statements were left out because of the controversial matter and the possibility of two Cumorahs.

This also is not an exhaustive summary of early statements, but there is enough information to answer the question of what the early beliefs and teachings of the saints in Joseph Smiths time were.

       Mesoamerica.......N. America.......S. America........Hemispheric
1830	   0-------------------0----------------0----------------1
1831	   0-------------------1----------------0----------------0
1832	   1-------------------1----------------0----------------2
1833	   1-------------------1----------------0----------------0
1834 	   0-------------------2----------------0----------------0
1835	   0-------------------3----------------0----------------1
1838	   0-------------------2----------------0----------------0
1840	   1-------------------0----------------1----------------1
1841	   5-------------------1----------------0----------------0
1842	   5-------------------1----------------0----------------2
1843	   1-------------------0----------------0----------------1
1844	   0-------------------0----------------0----------------2
Total	  14------------------12----------------1---------------10

1830 Nov., taught by Missionaries, Hemispheric setting*** The Lehites “landed on the coast of Chili [sic] 600” B.C.,and from them descended all the Indians of America.” 5

1831 Feb. taught by Missionaries, North American setting *** “An early account mentioned that the missionaries asked the ‘brethren of the reformation…to receive their mission and book as from heaven, which they said chiefly concerned the western Indians, as being an account of their origin, and a prophecy of their final conversion to [C]hristianity, and made them a white and delightsome people, and be reinstated in the possessing of their lands of which they have been despoiled by the whites’”6

1832 March, taught by Missionaries Hemispheric setting *** This article mentions Lehi landing in South America, and the final battles between the Nephites and Lamanites were “fought nigh to the straits of Darien, and the last at a hill called Comoro” 7

1832 April, taught by Orson Pratt, Hemispheric setting *** “Six hundred years before Christ a certain prophet called Lehi went out to declare and promulgate the prophecies to come; he came across the water into South America.” He continues” The last battle that was fought among these parties was on the very ground where the plates were found, but it had been a running battle, for they commenced at the Isthmus of Darien and ended at Manchester.” 8

1832 Oct., taught by W.W. Phelps, Central and North American setting *** “from the Mississippi to the Rocky Mountains…Jaredites were in their glory upon this choice land above all others…This place may be called the centre of America: It being about an equal distance
from Maine, to Nootka sound; and from the gulf of St. Lawrence to the gulf of California; yes,
and about the middle of the continent from cape Horn, south, to the head land at Barra’s Bay,
north. The world will never value the land of Desolation, as it is called in the book of Mormon,
for any thing more than hunting ground, for want of lumber and mill-seats: The Lord to the
contrary notwithstanding, declares it to be the land Zion which is the land of Joseph, blessed by
him.”9

1833 Feb., taught by W.W. Phelps, Central American setting
*** From the article “DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT RUINS IN CENTRAL AMERICA”
“We are glad to see the proof begin to come, of the original or ancient inhabitants of this continent. It is good testimony in favor of the book of Mormon, and the book of Mormon is good testimony that such things as cities and civilization, ‘prior to the fourteenth century,’ existed in America”10

1833 Feb., taught by Joseph Smith, North American setting*** “By it, we learn, that our western tribes of Indians, are descendants from that Joseph that was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them, and unto it, all the tribes of Israel will come, with as many of the gentiles as shall comply with the requisitions of the new covenant.”11

1834 June, taught by Joseph Smith, North American setting*** “wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as proof of its divine authenticity.”12

1834 June, taught by Joseph Smith, North American setting*** The Zelph incident: During Zions march, several members discovered the skeleton of a man, Joseph Smith stated “His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains.”13

1835 Nov., taught by W.W. Phelps, North America setting*** “Around that mount [Cumorah] died millions of the Jaredites; yea, there ended one of the greatest nations of this earth. In that day, her inhabitants spread from sea to sea, and enjoyed national greatness and glory, nearly fifteen hundred years.-That people forsook the Lord and died in wickedness. There, too, fell the Nephites, after they had forgotten the Lord that bought them.” 14

1835 Oct., taught by W.W. Phelps, Hemispheric setting*** “My last letter was mainly confined to the book of Mormon, which rarely fails to bring to my mind something about the Indians, whose history and doings, upon this western continent, it unfolds as plainly, as the bible does those of the Israelites on the eastern continent….
When I read the book of Mormon and reflect upon the mercy and goodness of God, in sparing some of the seed of Joseph upon this choice land of America: and consider his wisdom and love in preserving a record of the progenitors or fathers of this now smitten and dejected people, I cannot find the requisite terms to convey my thanks to such an all wise Being!…[there are] “thirty tribes, containing a population of 156,310, have held treaties with the United States, and that there is an Indian population east of the Mississippi, of 92,676,”—making a total of 405,286. Now allowing the same number west of the Mountains, and suppose 800,000, in the northern regions of the Canadas, and 500,000 in South America, there will be 2,110,562 of the sons of Joseph, and of the remnants of the Jews” 15

1835 Nov., taught by Joseph Smith, North America setting *** “The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians…By it [The Book of Mormon] we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants of Joseph that was sold into Egypt…” 16

1835 July, taught by Oliver Cowdery, North American setting *** Regarding Cumorah in New York, “At about one mile west rises another ridge of less height, running parallel with the former…between these hills, the entire power and national strength of both the Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed”17

1838 Sept., taught by Joseph Smith North American setting *** The camp passed through Huntsville, in Randolph County [Missouri], which has been appointed as one of the Stakes of Zion, and is the ancient site of the City of Manti….” 18

1838, taught by Joseph Smith, North American setting *** “He [Lyman Wight] lives at the foot of Tower Hill (a name I gave the place in consequence of the remains of an old Nephite altar or tower that stood there)…” 19

1840, taught by Orson Pratt, South American setting/landing *** “Mentions ‘the western coast of South America’ as the site of Lehis landing” 20

1840 Sept., taught by Parley P. Pratt, Hemispheric setting *** Asks if anyone would like proof of The Book of Mormon, just look at “the ruins of cities, towns, military roads, forts, fortifications, mounds, artificial caves, temples, statues, monuments, obelisks, hieroglyphics, sculptured altars, aqueducts, and an endless variety of articles of husbandry, cooking utensils, &c. &c. which are the product of some ancient race, who inhabited that land, and who had risen to a high state of refinement in the arts and sciences, as the relics of their labours prove-as they now lie scattered over a vast extent of North and South America, either on the surface, or buried beneath by the convulsions of nature, or the visitations of the Most High, as recorded in the fore-going extract; and which are frequently discovered and brought to light by antiquarian travellers.” (emphasis added) 21

1840 Sept., Edited by Parley P. Pratt, Central American setting *** “We learn from the New York Express, that Mr. Stephens, United States Charge to Guatemala, and Mr. Catherwood, of the Panorama, have met with most encouraging success at the outset of their researches for antiquities in Central America. At Quiragua they made the following discoveries: [quotes from article about discoveries] For further testimony and proof positive of the Book of Mormon, we copy the following [Testimony of Three Witnesses].” 22

1841, taught by Orson Spencer, Central American setting ***John Lloyd Stephens “Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan” influenced Orson Spencers decision to be baptized into the Church, and describes it as an “external evidence” of The Book of Mormon. Orson Spencer served for twelve years in the Baptist Church before his conversion and William Mulder used Orson as one of the examples of a highly educated person who joined the Church in Joseph Smiths time 23. In a letter to a former clergy member William Crowell, dated November 17, 1842, Spencer relates what aided in his conversion to the faith. He relates about his baptism in 1841 “As you enquire [inquire] after the reasons that operated to change my mind to the present faith, I only remark that Stevens’ Travels had some influence, as an external evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon.” 24

1841 May, taught by Charles Thompson, North American setting ***“I will next introduce the descriptions of some of these ancient fortifications and military works [in Eastern United States] of defence, as recorded in the American Antiquities, by Josiah Priest, and also introduce a history of the building of these fortifications and works of defence, as recorded in the Book of Mormon;” 25

1841 June, Editor of Times and Seasons, Central American setting ***In June 1841, the article “American Antiquities—More Proofs of the Book of Mormon” was published in the Times and Seasons, reading “We feel great pleasure in laying before our readers the following interesting account of the Antiquities of Central America, which have been discovered by two eminent travelers who have spent considerable labor, to bring to light the remains of ancient buildings, architecture &c., which prove beyond controversy that, on this vast continent once flourished a mighty people, skilled in the arts and sciences, and whose splendor would not be eclipsed by any of the nations of Antiquity—a people once high and exalted in the scale of intelligence, but now like their ancient buildings, fallen into ruins” and then quotes an article from the New York Herald on a two part lecture Catherwood and Stephens on their travels and discovery in Mesoamerica. 26

1841 Sept., taught by Wilford Woodruff, Central American setting *** “I felt truly interested in this work for it brought to light a flood of testimony in proof of the book of mormon in the discovery & survey of the city Copan in Central America…” 27

1841 Sept., taught by Charles Wandell, Central American setting ***In a letter by Charles W. Wandell published in the Times and Seasons, he draws the comparison of the “glyphs of Otolum,” (Palenque) to the characters on the Anthon manuscript. 28

1841 Nov., taught by Joseph Smith, Central American setting *** “Dear Sir, I received your kind present by the hand of Er Woodruff & feel myself under many obligations for this mark of your esteem & friendship which to me is the more interesting as it unfolds & developes many things that are of great importance to this generation & corresponds with & supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon; I have read the volumes with the greatest interest & pleasure & must say that of all histories that have been written pertaining to the antiquities of this country it is the most correct luminous & comprihensive.-…” 29

1842 Feb., taught by Parley P. Pratt, Central American setting *** –After an article titled “Ruins in Central America. Ancient Monument at Copan”, quoting many parts of, and reviewing Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan, Parley P. Pratt added:
“We publish the foregoing for the purpose of giving our readers some ideas of the antiquities of the Nephites–of their ancient cities, temples, monuments, towers, fortifications, and inscriptions now in ruin amid the solitude of an almost impenetrable forest; but fourteen hundred years since, in the days of Mormon, they were the abodes of thousands and millions of human beings, and the centre of civil and military operations unsurpassed in any age or country.
It is a striking and extraordinary coincidence, that, in the Book of Mormon, commencing page 563, there is an account of many cities as existing among the Nephites on the “narrow neck of land which connected the north country with the south country;” and Mormon names a number of them, which were strongly fortified, and were the theatres of tremendous battles, and that finally the Nephites were destroyed or driven to the northward, from year to year, and their towns and country made most desolate, until the remnant became extinct on the memorable heights of Cumorah (now western New York),–I say it is remarkable that Mr. Smith, in translating the Book of Mormon from 1827 to 1830, should mention the names and circumstances of those towns and fortifications in this very section of country, where a Mr Stephens, ten years afterwards, penetrated a dense forest, till then unexplored by modern travellers, and actually fines the ruins of those very cities mentioned by Mormon.
The nameless nation of which he speaks were the Nephites.
The lost record for which he mourns is the Book of Mormon.
The architects, orators, statesmen, and generals, whose works and monuments he admires, are, Alma, Moroni, Helaman, Nephi, Mormon, and their cotemporaries.
The very cities whose ruins are in his estimation without a name, are called in the Book of Mormon, “Teancum, Boaz, Jordan, Desolation,” &c.” 30

May 1842, taught by Joseph Smith, North American setting
*** In the editorial “A Catacomb of Mummies Found in Kentucky”, Joseph Smith said “Had Mr. Ash in his researches consulted the Book of Mormon his problem would have been solved, and he would have found no difficulty in accounting for the mummies being found in the above mentioned case…This art was no doubt transmitted from Jerusalem to this continent, by the before mentioned emigrants, which accounts for the finding of the mummies, and at the same time is another strong evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.—Ed.” 31

1842 June, taught by Joseph Smith, Hemispheric setting *** “the Mexican records agree so well with the words of the book of Ether (found by the people of Limhi, which is contained in the Book of Mormon) in relation to the confounding of languages” “In regard to the confusion of languages it is said of the above nations, that there were “fifteen heads, or chiefs of families, that were permitted to speak the same language.” The Book of Mormon, concerning the same event, says: “And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did cry unto the Lord; and the Lord had compassion on Jared, therefore he did not confound the language of Jared”-and it further states that Jared’s brother’s language was not confounded; and they then prayed for their families and friends also, and the Lord heard them in their behalf; and their language was not confounded. These accounts, then, precisely agree, one of which was found in Ontario county, N. Y., and the other in Mexico.
Again, those nations, of families, embodied themselves together and traveled they know not where, but at length arrived in the country of Aztalan, of the lake country of America. The Book of Mormon says, that the brother of Jared cried unto the Lord, that he would give them another land; the Lord heard him, and told him to go to a certain place, “and there I will meet thee and go before thee into a land which is choice above all the land of the earth.” This it further speaks is the land of America. The coincidence is so striking that further comment is unnecessary.-ED.” 32

1842 July, taught by John Page, Central American setting ***John Page believed several of the cities in 3 Nephi 8–9 were the same as found in Stephens and Catherwoods book. “And how was you destroyed? was the inquiry of those efficient antiquarians Messrs. Catherwood and Stephens, the charge d’affairs of these United States, as they sit on the wondrous walls of “Copan,” situated near the western extremity of the Bay of Honduras, in the narrowest neck of land between the waters of the Atlantic ocean and the Pacific ocean, the very place where the Book of Mormon located a great city, on the narrow neck of land between the two seas. . . . How was this city, with seven or eight others, which Stephens gives us an account of, destroyed? Read the Book of Mormon, and that will tell the story of their sad disasters” 33

1842 July, taught by Joseph Smith, Hemispheric setting ***Joseph Smith quotes Josiah Priest on his work in Indians in America and Canada in a comparison with BOM tools/metals/cities, etc… “Weapons of brass have been found in many parts of America, as in the Canadas, Florida, &c. with curiously sculptured stones, all of which go to prove that this country was once peopled with civilized, industrious nations…If men, in their researches into the history of this country, in noticing the mounds, fortifications, statues, architecture, implements of war, of husbandry, and ornaments of silver, brass, &c.-were to examine the Book of Mormon, their conjectures would be removed, and their opinions altered; uncertainty and doubt would be changed into certainty and facts; and they would find that those things that they are anxiously prying into were matters of history, unfolded in that book. They would find their conjectures were more than realized-that a great and a mighty people had inhabited this continent-that the arts sciences and religion, had prevailed to a very great extent, and that there was as great and mighty cities on this continent as on the continent of Asia. Babylon, Ninevah, nor any of the ruins of the Levant could boast of more perfect sculpture, better architectural designs, and more imperishable ruins, than what are found on this continent. Stephens and Catherwood’s researches in Central America abundantly testify of this thing. The stupendous ruins, the elegant sculpture, and the magnificence of the ruins of Guatamala, and other cities, corroborate this statement, and show that a great and mighty people-men of great minds, clear intellect, bright genius, and comprehensive designs inhabited this continent. Their ruins speak of their greatness; the Book of Mormen [Mormon} unfolds their history.-ED.”34

1842 July, taught by John Page, Central American *** "Let it be distinctly understood," John Page wrote, "that the Prophet Alma uttered this prophecy, not far from Guatemala or Central America, some 82 years before the birth of Christ." 35

1842 Sept., Joseph Smith or John Taylor, Central American setting *** “Mr Stephens' great developments of antiquities are made bare to the eyes of all the people by reading the history of the Nephites in the Book of Mormon. They lived about the narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central America, with all the cities that can be found. Read the destruction of cities at the crucifixion of Christ...Let us turn our subject, however, to the Book of Mormon, where these wonderful ruins of Palenque are among the mighty works of the Nephites:—and the mystery is solved...Mr. Stephens' great developments of antiquities are made bare to the eyes of all the people by reading the history of the Nephites in the Book of Mormon. They lived about the narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central America, with all the cities that can be found. Read the destruction of cities at the crucifixion of Christ, pages 459-60. Who could have dreamed that twelve years would have developed such incontrovertible testimony to the Book of Mormon?... Lehi went down by the Red Sea to the great Southern Ocean, and crossed over to this land and landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien," 36

1842 Oct., Joseph Smith or John Taylor, Central American setting ***[W]e have found another important fact relating to the truth of the Book of Mormon. Central America, or Guatimala [Guatemala], is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south.-The city of Zarahemla, burnt at the crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land as will be seen from the following words in the book of Alma…It is certainly a good thing for the excellency and veracity, of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, that the ruins of Zarahemla have been found where the Nephites left them: and that a large stone with engravings upon it as Mosiah said; and a ‘large round stone, with the sides sculptured in hieroglyphics,’ as Mr. Stephens has published, is also among the left remembrances of the, (to him,) lost and unknown. We are not going to declare positively that the ruins of Quirigua are those of Zarahemla, but when the land and the stones, and the books tell the story so plain, we are of opinion, that it would require more proof than the Jews could bring to prove the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the tomb, to prove that the ruins of the city in question, are not one of those referred to in the Book of Mormon…It will not be a bad plan to compare Mr. Stephens’ ruined cities with those in the Book of Mormon: light cleaves to light, and facts are supported by facts.” 37

1843 Aug., taught by Orson Pratt, Hemispheric setting ***Wilford Woodruff recorded Orson Pratt words on Book of Mormon geography: “[Orson Pratt] spoke in an edifying manner concerning the Book of Mormon its history what it was &c. That it was a History of nearly one half of the globe & the people that inhabited it, that it gave a history of all those cities that have been of late discovered by Catherwood & Stephens, that it named those cities.”38

1843 Oct., taught by Joseph Smith, Central American setting
*** “This is a work [Stephens and Catherwoods book] that ought to be in the hands of every Latter Day Saint; corroborating, as it does the history of the Book of Mormon. There is no stronger circumstancial evidence of the authenticity of the latter book, can be given, than that contained in Mr. Stephens’ works.” 39

1844 Jan., Editor of Times and Seasons (John Taylor) Hemispheric setting *** “ANCIENT RUINS: Every day adds fresh testimony to the already accumulated evidence on the authenticity of the “Book of Mormon.” At the time that book was translated there was very little known about ruined cities and dilapidated buildings. The general presumption was, that no people possessing more intelligence than our present race of Indians had ever inhabited this continent, and the accounts given in the Book of Mormon concerning large cities and civilized people having inhabited this land, was generally disbelieved and pronounced a humbug. Priest, since then has thrown some light on this interesting subject. Stephens in his “Incidents of Travels in Central America,” has thrown in a flood of testimony, and from the following statements it is evident that the Book of Mormon does not give a more extensive account of large and populous cities than those discoveries now demonstrate to be even in existence.-Ed” 40

1844 June, taught by Joseph Smith Hemispheric setting **** — “The next day the Prophet came to our home and stopped in our carpenter shop and stood by the turning lathe. I went and got my map for him. “Now”, he said, “I will show you the travels of this people”….you will have to go to where the Nephites lost their power…Placing his finger on the map, I should think about where Snowflake, Arizona is situated, or it could have been Mexico…” 41

You will notice that a North American theory was the most popular in the first decade of the Church. I believe this is because of the works of Josiah Priests 42 and Ethan Smith 43, as well the access they had to information on local Indian cultures. But as information from Mesoamerica began to come forth from John Lloyd Stephens and Fredrick Catherwoods book “Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan”, which began to make its presence known in America in 1841, with their elaborate drawings of ruined cities, detailed explanations of advanced cultures, more and more statements were being made about a Mesoamerican setting for The Book of Mormon. Again, if it was a black and white issue with The Book of Mormon happening either in North or Central America, and Joseph Smith *knew* and taught one or the other, the opinions would not have been swayed so easily as we see they were when new information arose. Either they would have stuck with a North American setting, or corrected past statements as conjecture and embraced the new Mesoamerican setting. But we do not see that. What we do see is an acceptance of a Mesoamerican setting becoming popular in 1841, while statements are continually being published advocating a North American setting, as well as a Hemispheric setting for The Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith even used what he saw as evidence of The Book of Mormon for both a North American setting, and a Central American setting in the very same article!44 For those who attempt to say that Joseph Smith only espoused a Great Lakes setting, or a Mesoamerican setting, is not being honest with, or ignoring the facts.

Conclusion,
We do not see any limited geography theory taught consistently in Joseph Smiths time, either by Joseph Smith, Apostles, or the average saint. This would be expected if there were no revealed geography, and Joseph Smith and the Saints were left to speculate on the whereabouts of Book of Mormon events. If there was a true knowledge of Book of Mormon locations in the early days of the Church (assuming a LGT), then Joseph Smith went against any revelation given him by continuing to teach Book of Mormon settings all over the entire Western Continent throughout his whole lifetime. If there were a revealed location, then it was not taught to the 12 Apostles and other Saints, for they continued to teach and publish on BOM lands in North, Central, and South America, without any correction. Even when Joseph Smith was Editor of Church publications, and had the power to deny anything he saw as a false teaching from being published, he allowed several opinions to be taught.
I believe the evidence points in the direction that Joseph Smith did not know the exact area of The Book of Mormon. And just like today, both the Prophet , and the Saints were allowed to speculate on these locations without any correction.

————————————————————
1. I do not say Great Lakes setting, because his statements place Book of Mormon events in Kentucky, Texas, Florida, and the Western U.S., which would be outside most Great Lakes theorists geography
2. In the article “Discovery of Ancient Ruins in Central America”, W.W. Phelps places Mesoamerican in “this continent”. “We are glad to see the proof begin to come, of the original or ancient inhabitants of this continent. It is good testimony in favor of the book of Mormon, and the book of Mormon is good testimony that such things as cities and civilization, ‘prior to the fourteenth century,’ existed in America” Evening and Morning Star 1/9 (February 1833). He uses “Central America” and “this continent” synonymously.
3. Joseph Smith equated “this country” with Mesoamerica in his letter to John Bernhisel, thanking him for Stephens and Catherwood’s book on their travels through Mesoamerican ruins called Incidents in Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan. He wrote “Dear Sir, I received your kind present by the hand of Er Woodruff & feel myself under many obligations for this mark of your esteem & friendship which to me is the more interesting as it unfolds & developes many things that are of great importance to this generation & corresponds with & supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon; I have read the volumes with the greatest interest & pleasure & must say that of all histories that have been written pertaining to the antiquities of this country it is the most correct luminous & comprihensive.-“(emphasis added) Joseph Smith, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, compiled and edited by Dean C. Jessee [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1984], 501 – 502.

4. “Since our ‘Extract’ was published from Mr. Stephens’ ‘Incidents of Travel,’ &c., we have found another important fact relating to the truth of the Book of Mormon. Central America, or Guatimala [Guatemala], is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south.-The city of Zarahemla, burnt at the crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land…” (emphasis added) ” Zarahemla,” Times and Seasons 3/23 (1 October 1842): 927
5. Observer and Telegraph. Religious, Political, and Literary, Hudson, Ohio (18 November 1830): 3.
6 . Mormonism, Telegraph 2 (Feb. 15, 1831), Painsville, Ohio as quoted in H. Michael Marquardt The Rise of Mormonism: 1816-1814, (Xulon Press, Longwood, Florida, 2005) pg. 302
7. The Fredonia Censor 11 [7 March 1832]:[4], Fredonia, New York

8. Orson Pratt, “The Orators of Mormonism,” Catholic Telegraph, 14 April 1832

9. Evening and Morning Star, October 1832, Vol. I, No. 5 “The Far West” By placing the Northern lands of the Nephites, the land of Desolation, in the center of America, it requires that most Book of Mormon events take place south of that area. This would make most North American geography models incompatible with Book of Mormon geography.

10. Evening and Morning Star 1/9 (February 1833), pg 71.
11. Joseph Smith to N. C. Saxton, 4 January 1833, American Revivalist, 2 February 1833

12. Joseph Smith to Emma Smith, 4 June 1834, in Dean Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, rev. ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and Brigham Young University Press, 2002), 345—46.
13. Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 2:79–80;
14. Messenger and Advocate, Nov. 1835, Vol. 2 No. 14, “Letter #12”

15. W. W. Phelps to Oliver Cowdery, “Letter No. 11,” Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate 2:1 (October 1835): 193–95.
16. B.H. Roberts, History of the Church (Nov 16, 1835), 1:315
17. Messenger and Advocate, July 1835, pg. 158, re-printed Times and Seasons 2 (15 Apr 1841): 378.
18. [Sept. 1838] The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star, “History of Joseph Smith,” Vol. 16, page 296, May 13, 1854; In answer to this, John Sorenson writes: “No origin of the statement about Manti is credited in either record. It has been inferred, plausibly, to have come from Joseph Smith. According to The Book of Mormon, of course, the Nephite city of Manti was south of the city of Zarahemla and obviously south of the narrow neck of land; its location was not far from the headwaters of the north-flowing Sidon River. It is obvious that no place in Missouri, nor in North America, could qualify in these terms, hence there had to be an error in the original assertion or in its transmission.” John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, FARMS, pg 373)
19. Joseph Smith, Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Alma P. Burton, p. 208

20. Orson Pratt, An Interesting account of Several Remarkable Visions, and of the Late Discovery of Ancient Records, 1840. Third American edition, New York, 1842, pg 18, as quoted in John L. Sorensons The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book FARMS, pg 373)

21. Millenial Star, September 1840, Vol. 1 No. 4 “Book of Mormon”

22. Millenial Star, September 1840, Vol. 1, No. 4 “Antiquities of America”. Parley P. Pratt makes direct ties between The Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican cities, but in the same article (and previous quote), mentions if you want proof of The Book of Mormon, just look at the relics, ruins, etc… which “now lie scattered over a vast extent of North and South America.” This is a recurring theme among the early saints. They fully believed Book of Mormon cities were in Mesoamerica, but also had a conflicting belief that all the inhabitants of the Americas, North and South, were descended from Book of Mormon peoples.

23. Mulder, William. “Mormonism and Literature” in Cracroft, Richard H. and Neal E. Lambert, ed. A Believing People: Literature of the Latter-day Saints. (Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1974) p. 208
24. Orson Spencer, Times and Seasons, January 2nd 1843, Vol. IV. No. 4.] CITY OF NAUVOO, ILL., pg 51
25.Charles B. Thompson, Evidences in The Proof of The Book of Mormon, BATAVIA, N. Y.
P U B L I S H E D B Y D. D. W A I T E. pg 97-98, re-published in Times and Seasons, 1 Jan. 1842, pgs. 640-644

26. Times and Seasons, June 15, 1841, vol.2 No. 16, pg 440-442
27. Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9 vols., ed., Scott G. Kenny (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 2:126; journal entry dated 13 Sept 1841

28. Times and Seasons, Sept 15 1841, vol. 2 No. 22 pg. 544-545
29. Joseph Smith, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, compiled and edited by Dean C. Jessee (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1984), 501 – 502.

30. Parley P. Pratt, “Ruins in Central America,” Millennial Star 2/11 (March 1842): 165.

31. Joseph Smith, ed., “A Catacomb of Mummies Found in Kentucky,” Times and Seasons, 3:781-782 (May 2, 1842).

32. Traits of the Mosaic History, Found Among the Aztaeca Nations, Times and Seasons, vol. III no. 16 Pg 820

33. John E. Page, reply to “‘A Disciple,’” Morning Chronicle, Pittsburgh, 1 July 1842, as quoted in Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations, Matthew Roper, FARMS Review: Volume – 16, Issue – 2, Pages: 225-76 Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2004

34. Joseph Smith (editor),” American Antiquities,” Times and Seasons 3/18 (15 July 1842): 860

35. John E. Page, “Mormonism Concluded: To ‘A Disciple,’” Morning Chronicle, Pittsburgh, 20 July 1842
36. Extract from Stephens’ ‘Incidents of Travel in Central America’,” Times and Seasons 3/22 (15 September 1842): 915, 922; It is unknown who exactly authored this article, but the term “we” is used throughout it, implying there was at least 2 people who helped write it. Some have argued that Joseph Smith, even though acting editor, had nothing to do with the articles in Sept. and Oct. of 1842 because he was in hiding. While this was a time he was hiding from those who wished to do him harm, he did not seclude himself from his family or duties. Joseph Smith was at his house on September 2nd, 11th -14th, 16th-20th, 22nd-24th, 27th-30th, October 3rd-6th and the 20th. That does not include short visits, but only visits that were “all day”. During the time Joseph Smith was in “hiding” he continued on with his duties which he previously had. He held meetings with members of the Twelve Apostles, received revelation now found in the Doctrine and Covenants, wrote and received letters, and met with John Taylor, the assistant editor of Times and Seasons on at least two separate occasions. One of those occasions Joseph Smith specifically “counseled Elder Taylor concerning the printing office.” The Prophet also kept up on local news. We have account of him reading from the newspapers The Wasp, The Quincy Whig, and the New York Herald. It would seem improbable that he read from many periodicals and newspapers, yet neglect to read or edit his own. Dean C. Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith, (Deseret Book, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1992) pgs. 452-489

37. See previous footnote ” Zarahemla,” Times and Seasons 3/23 (1 October 1842): 927
38. Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9 vols., ed., Scott G. Kenny (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 2:282; journal entry dated 27 August 1843. History of the Church pg 552
39. Times and Seasons Oct. 1, 1843, Vol. 4 No. 22, pg 346-347 “Stephens’ Works on Central America”

40 . Times and Seasons, January 1st 1844, 5:390
41 . Mosiah Hancock, Autobiography, BYU Special Collections, Writings of Early Latter-day Saints 28.) The Journal of Mosiah Lyman Hancock, p. 19-20; Autobiography of Mosiah Hancock, typescript, BYU Library Special Collections, p. 29. Compiled by Amy E. Baird, Victoria H. Jackson, and Laura L. Wassell (daughters of Mosiah Hancock).
42 . American Antiquities and Discoveries in the West, (Albany, Hoffman and White, 1835)
43. View of the Hebrews, (Smith and Shute, Poultney, Vt, 1823
44. “Traits of the Mosaic History, Found Among the Azteca Nations,” Times and Seasons 3/16 (15 June 1842): 818–820

In his paper titled “LDS Historical Rhetoric & Praxis Regarding Marriage Between Whites and Blacks,” Connell O’Donovan asserts that Brigham Young’s fear of black sexuality was the reason he prohibited black-white marriage and instigated the priesthood-temple ban, and that Young’s resistance to black-white marriage must be seen within the context of his own marital experimentation which at that time was receiving scrutiny via the press and the Massachusetts State Supreme Court. He then lists several topics of discussion, such as, examples of inter-racial marriages in LDS history, the fruition of anti-miscegenation laws under BY, statements about black-white marriage from the Deseret News, and eventually how LDS leaders abandoned their restrictions against black-white marriage. Or, as O’Donovan puts it, “unnecessary restrictions on the boundaries of love and marriage.”

His paper also demonstrates that LDS feelings at one time were deeply hostile to black-white marriage and that many Latter-day Saints believed black-white marriages would never be permitted, etc.

With that in mind, he doesn’t explicitly state the purpose of his paper. If it is to parade prejudicial attitudes once held by many Mormons, and Mormon leaders, then why talk about gay marriage? Though he doesn’t come out and say it explicitly, his paper is principally, though indirectly, about gay marriage.

His declamations about LDS attitudes toward black-white marriage ultimately serve his beliefs about Mormonism and gay marriage. In the past (and not-so-distant past) many Mormons believed black-white marriages were really bad and held rather racist attitudes towards blacks. But eventually the LDS Church abandoned their antiquated beliefs. He then draws on those former attitudes to create parallels with current attitudes about homosexuals and homosexual marriage. By building on those parallels O’Donovan takes those feelings of shame and embarrassment about the past and attaches them to present-day negative attitudes about homosexuality, gays, and gay marriage. From there he creates a sense that the past changed for the better and hopefully the present situation will too.

As far as BY’s involvement in a rather embarrassing divorce—BY had married a plural wife, Augusta Cobb, who had not yet divorced her first husband—I don’t see the relevance. Why must BY’s resistance to black-white marriage be “seen within the context of his own marital experimentation”? One would think O’Donovan would build a solid case that very strong assertion. But instead, he chickens out by posing and then answering the question, “Did Young then turn and take out his frustrations on a group of ‘inferiors’?…it would certainly seem so.” Though he doesn’t build a much of case for his assertion as to why BY’s opposition to black-white marriage “must also be seen within the context of his own marital experimentation” (italics mine), as a parallel device it works. BY took out his fear on those who were an easy target and today the LDS Church takes out its fear on homosexuals who are also an easy target.

O’Donovan’s paper fails as serious historical inquiry. As an exhibition of dirty laundry he succeeds, but ends up with a rather confused paper. As polemics creating a connection between abandoned, embarrassing attitudes about race and soon to be abandoned (he hopes) attitudes about homosexuals and gay marriage, he succeeds.

In other words, his paper is a nice piece of propaganda.

Drawing on the past

O’Donovan’s paper is a variation on the theme, “The patterns of the past are the patterns of the future.”

BY’s fear about black male sexuality prompted a ban on black-white marriage (an attitude the church eventually abandoned); the Church’s ban on homosexual marriage comes from its attitudes about homosexual sex (an perhaps that too will be abandoned). The church abandoned plural marriage and will eventually abandon opposition to gay marriage. The church dropped its priesthood ban and eventually will drop its own ban on gay marriage. In the past Mormons had racist attitudes against blacks, but that changed; Mormons will eventually abandon their attitudes against homosexuality. At one time laws prohibited black-white marriage; and one day laws prohibiting gay-marriage will also be history. The push for gay marriage is a continuation of the civil rights movement which overturned many discriminatory laws and attitudes. It will continue and eventually overturn laws and attitudes against gay marriage. Since Mormons find some aspects of their past embarrassing; one day they will feel embarrassment about present-day opposition to gay marriage…But why wait. Start change now!

That is how the usual polemic goes. I’ll write more in another post, but this will do for now.

John W. Welch, the issue’s editor, can hardly contain his enthusiasm:

Imagine!…having the BCR is something akin to uncovering a discarded draft of the Declaration of Independence or some of the missing records used by Luke in preparing his gospel (p. 5).

This issue of BYU Studies includes four enjoyable papers on BCR that were presented in a plenary session of the 2009 Mormon History Association meeting in May 2009. These articles, written by members of the Joseph Smith Papers editorial team, provide details not included in the Revelations and Translations volume itself.

Robert J. Woodford, “Introducing A Book of Commandments and Revelations, A Major New Documentary ‘Discovery,’” (pp. 7-17).

Woodford gives a brief overview BCR and its provenance, and identifies those (including himself) who worked on its publication preparation. He describes how researchers identified the way BCR was referenced for publishing the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. He concludes with some suggestions for future research based on BCR. For example, analyzing alterations in the revelations raises historical and theological implications. The so-called Book of Mormon copyright revelation and a piece on the “pure language” are of interest. The dates revelations were received and the historical setting can be reevaluated. “Each researcher will find his own area of particular interest” now that the BCR has been published and made available (p. 16).

Robin Scott Jensen, “From Manuscript to Printed Page: An Analysis of the History of the Book of Commandments and Revelations,” (pp. 19-52).

In this highly technical article Jensen more fully traces the provenance, context, and content of the BCR. He meticulously describes the physical makeup of the book as well as its significance to scholars. “When scholars approach newly discovered documents, several important questions arise. When and why was it created? Who created it? What was it used for?” (p. 21). For Jensen, reading the words on the page alone only yields half an answer to these questions. Only by studying the internal and external evidence, the manuscript words as well as the history of Mormonism and the nature of archival record keeping, can we fully appreciate the document in question. Jensen explains how “forensic paleography” helps researchers find out when a document was created, how it was used, and what it might have meant to the people involved in its creation. In other words, Jensen is asking questions about what the BCR can teach us about the very process of revelation itself.

Steven C. Harper, “Historical Headnotes and the Index of Contents in the Book of Commandments and Revelations,” (pp. 53- 66).

John Whitmer, the principle scribe for the BCR, included interesting date and header information for many of the revelations, allowing researchers to reassess the date and context of many early revelations. Clues will help reassess timing of aspects of the Book of Mormon translation, the location of the organization of the Church, the date when section 20 was revealed (calling into question speculation about Christ’s birthday being the 6th of April), the timing of the “parchment of John” revelation, the identity of James Covill, the circumstances surrounding a meeting where men were asked to testify to the truthfulness of Joseph Smith’s revelations, and how early members understood the imperfect revelations from a 24-year-old ploughboy prophet. Harper notes his essay does not finish much historical reassessment, but is meant to encourage it by describing how the BCR’s index of contents and historical headnotes can be examined by scholars.

Grant Underwood, “Revelation, Text, and Revision: Insight From the Book of Commandments and Revelations,” (pp. 67-84).

Underwood explores how textual revisions shed “important light on the process by which Joseph Smith received, recorded, and published his revelations” (p. 67). What is revelation? A direct word-for-word message from God, or the human articulation of the message? Something in between? Tracking some changes between the BCR and later published versions of the revelations allows us to see how Joseph Smith and his contemporaries understood the process. For the most part Underwood says pre-July 1833 revisions were mostly grammatical and stylistic, or clarified meaning. After that point in preparation for publishing the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants changes were made to update, amplify, and incorporate newly revealed polity or doctrine (p. 68). He tracks who made most of the corrections, surprisingly few in the hand of Joseph Smith himself, who was the one called to make such changes. Underwood explains a “latitudinarian” view of the revelations, where Joseph trusted associates to make changes so long as the general sense was not adjusted. Thus, divine communication has a human component which needs to be taken into account, or as Jeffrey R. Holland stated: “The scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge for Latter-day Saints. They are manifestations of the ultimate source. The ultimate source of knowledge and authority for a Latter-day Saint is the living God” (p. 81). Underwood deftly utilizes scholarship on revelation from several different faith traditions and non-LDS scholars to help readers better understand revelation and the written word.

Ronald E. Romig provides a brief response to these papers and a short historical overview from the perspective of the Community of Christ (pp. 85-91). In the Book Review section Thomas Coens, an associate editor of the Papers of Andrew Jackson series gives a non-Mormon scholar’s perspective on the landmark inaugural installment of the Joseph Smith Papers. He tips his cap to the rigorous scholarship involved in the Journals volume and provides a few personal thoughts on the volume. James B. Allen also reviews the Journals volume.

In addition to these special articles, the issue includes a piece on Eliza R. Snow’s poetry, LDS athletic tournaments from 1950-1971, and book reviews of the Twighlight series, Bushman’s Very Short Introduction to Mormonism and a few other selections. A paperback copy of this issue is available for $9.95, or a digital copy can be downloaded for $7.00. See byustudies.byu.edu for more. This is a highly recommended issue.

My excerpts are mostly from Opening the Heavens which contains a compilation of 203 translation accounts done by Jack Welch. My footnotes are keyed to the number that Welch assigned. I have supplemented Welch’s accounts with several found in the 4th volume of Dan Vogel’s Early Mormon Documents series, in which case I use the page number the excerpt is found on.

Curtain Accounts

The way that Smith made his transcripts and transcriptions for Harris was the following. Although in the same room, a thick curtain or blanket was suspended between them, and Smith concealed behind the blanket, pretended to look through his spectacles, or transparent stones, and would then write down or repeat what he saw, which, when repeated aloud, was written down by Harris, who sat on the other side of the suspended blanket. Harris was told that it would arouse the most terrible divine displeasure, if he should attempt to draw near the sacred chest, or look at Smith while engaged in the work of decyphering the mysterious characters. This was Harris’s own account of the matter to me. [45]

He [David Whitmer] said that Joseph was separated from the scribe by a blanket, as I remember; that he had the Urim and Thummim, and a chocolate colored stone, which he used alternately, as suited his convenience,and he said he believed Joseph could as well accomplish the translation by looking into a hat, or any other stone, as by the use of the Urim and Thummim or the chocolate colored stone. David expressed absolute faith in the Prophet’s power to get any information he desired, and by any means he should adopt for the purpose. I mean he appeared to have absolute faith in the Prophet’s power with God, to get any information he wished for. And he did not think that either the Urim and Thummim or the stone he had were essential, or absolutely essential, to the obtaining of the information. He said that Joseph would–as I remember–place the manuscript beneath the stone or Urim and Thummim, and the characters would appear in English, which he would spell out, and they would remain there until the word was fully written and corrected, when it would disappear and another word appear, etc. [98]

Harris declares, that when he acted as amanuenses, and wrote the translation, as Smith dictated, such was his fear of the Divine displeasure, that a screen (sheet) was suspended between the prophet and himself…. [137]

[Martin Harris] says he wrote a considerable part of the book, as Smith dictated, and at one time the presence of the Lord was so great, that a screen was hung up between him and the Prophet; at other times the Prophet would sit in a different room, or up stairs, while the Lord was communicating to him the contents of the plates. He does not pretend that he ever saw the wonderful plates but once, although he and Smith were engaged for months in deciphering their contents. [155]

This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, decyphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain, to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been decyphered “by the gift of God:’ Every thing, in this way, was effected by the large pair of spectacles. [158]

A young man, it seems, had been placed in the garret of a farm-house, with a curtain before him, and, having fastened the spectacles to his head, had read several pages in the golden book, and communicated their contents in writing to certain persons stationed on the outside of the curtain. He had also copied off one page of the book in the original character, which he had in like manner handed over to those who were separated from him by the curtain, and this copy was the paper which the countryman had brought with him. [165]

Translations and interpretations were now entered upon by the prophet, and manuscript specimens of these, with some of the literally transcribed characters, were shown to people, including ministers and other gentlemen of learning and influence…. The manuscripts were in the handwriting of one Oliver Cowdery, which had been written down by him, as he and Smith declared, from the translations, word for word, as made by the latter with the aid of the mammoth spectacles or Urim and Thummim, and verbally announced by him from behind a blanket-screen drawn across a dark corner of a room at his residence-for at this time the original revelation, limiting to the prophet the right of seeing the sacred plates, had not yet been changed, and the view with the instrument used was even too brilliant for his own spiritualized eyes in the light! This was the story of the first series of translations, which was always persisted in by the few persons connected with the business at this early period of its progress. The single significance of this theory will doubtless be manifest, when the facts are stated in explanation, that Smith could not write in a legible hand, and hence an amanuensis or scribe was necessary. Cowdery had been a schoolmaster, and was the only man in the band who could make a copy for the printer. …. The work of translation this time [after the loss of the 116 pages] had been done in the recess of a dark artificial cave, which Smith had caused to be dug in the east side of the forest-hill near his residence. , .. [T]hough another version was, that the prophet continued to pursue his former mode of translating behind the curtain at his house, and only went into the cave to pay his spiritual devotions. [171]

As he claimed to be the author of the “Book of Mormon” his story was that by the aid of his wonderful stone he found gold plates on which were inscribed the writings in hieroglyphics. He translated them by means of a pair of magic spectacles which the Lord delivered to him at the same time that the golden tablets were turned up. But nobody but Joe himself ever saw the golden tablets or the far-seeing spectacles. He dictated the book, concealed behind a curtain, and it was written down by Cowdery. This course seemed to be rendered necessary by the fact that Joe did not know how to write. [177]

The whole history is shrouded in the deepest mystery. Joseph Smith Jr., who read through the wonderful spectacles, pretended to give the scribe the exact reading of the plates, even to spelling, in which Smith was wofully deficient. Martin Harris was permitted to be in the room with the scribe, and would try the knowledge of Smith, as he told me, saying that Smith could not spell the word February, when his eyes were off the spectacles through which he pretended to work. This ignorance of Smith was proof positive to him that Smith was dependent on the spectacles for the contents of the Bible. Smith and the plates containing the original of the Mormon Bible were hid from view of the scribe and Martin Harris by a screen. [199]

Richards [Martin Harris], got into the Stage house when on rout & Said he resided at Palmira, & had been to Quages, which was in the town of Colesville a few miles from South Bainbridge village to See Jos[eph] Smith, who had resided in Palmira, & had found a gold bible & stone in which he looked & was thereby enabled to translate the very ancient chara[c]ters which found in the bible. He Said Smith was poor & was living in a house which had only one room & Smith had a sheet put up in one corner & went behind it from observation when he was writing the bible. He Said Smith kept the bible hid or covered up & put it in a hat & had the Stone which found in Pal=mira & look[e]d through it & then wrote what he read in the bible. He Said would not let him see the bible but let him feel of it when it was covered up. Smith read to him a good deal of the bible & he repeated to those in the Stage verse after verse of what Smith had read to him; [emd4-145]

He farther showed this manuscript to Knight, which he claimed was translated by himself by looking through the Urim and Thummim while he sat behind a blanket hung across a room in order that the sacred records might be kept from profane eyes, and read off the “Book of Mormon,” or Golden Bible as he sometimes called it, to Oliver Cowdery who wrote it down. [emd4-232]

Joe Smith would write the translation from his plates upon a slate, or dictate what to write, and others would copy upon paper. His assistants were witness Martin Harris, and brother-in-law Reuben Hale. The translating and writing were done in the little low chamber of Joe Smith’s house. The Prophet and his precious trust were screened even from the sight of his clerks by blankets nailed to the walls. 32 The nails remained for many years just as they were driven by the Prophet, and it was not until some repairing was done a short time ago that they were drawn out. Neighbors were free to call at the house as much as they pleased while the bible was concocting, and the matter of the golden bible would be talked over. Some persons were permitted to lift the pillow case in which it was kept, and feel the thickness of the volume the plates made, but no one was permitted to see them. [emd4-355]

MRS. SALLIE MCKUNE, widow of Joseph McKune and mother of Sheriff [Benjamin] McKune, is now eighty years old. She was between twenty-five and thirty years old when Joe Smith was performing about Susquehanna, and lived upon a farm adjoining Joe Smith’s lot and the Isaac Hale farm, and in sight of the place where they dug for the ton of silver, on Jacob I. Skinner’s farm. Smith’s residence was between the residence of an addition to the house, and Mrs. McKune lived in the house about forty years. She remembers the arrangement of the nails used for hooks to hang blankets on during the translation of the golden bible. [emd4-358]

Hence the magic spectacles were very opportunely found with the plates. The little low chamber in Smith’s house was used as a translating- room. The prophet and his plates were screened even from the sight of his scribes, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery and Reuben Hale, by blankets secured with nails. While the translation was going on the neighbors frequently called to discuss the forthcoming book, which, it was alleged, would make the Hale family very rich. Occasionally a visitor was allowed to feel the thickness of the Golden Book as it reposed within a pillow-case, but no one was permitted to see it. [emd4-364]

No Curtain Accounts

In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us. [41]

In order to give privacy to the proceeding a blanket, which served as a portiere, was stretched across the family living room to shelter the translators and the plates from the eyes of any who might call at the house while the work was in progress. This, Mr. Whitmer says, was the only use made of the blanket, and it was not for the purpose of concealing the plates or the translator from the eyes of the amanuensis. In fact, Smith was at no time hidden from his collaborators, and the translation was performed in the presence of not only the persons mentioned, but of the entire Whitmer household and several of Smith’s relatives besides. [93]

I staid in Richmond two days and nights. I had a great deal of talk with widow Cowdry, and her amiable daughter. She is married to a Dr Johnson, but has no children. She gave me a certificate, And this is the copy. “Richmond, Ray Co., Mo. Feb 15, 1870–I cheerfully certify that I was familiar with the manner of Joseph Smith’s translating the book of Mormon. He translated the most of it at my Father’s house. And I often sat by and saw and heard them translate and write for hours together. Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe while he was translating. He would place the director in his hat, and then place his face in his hat, so as to exclude the light, and then [read the words?] as they appeared before him.” [112]

Soon I learned that Jo claimed to be translating the plates in Badger’s Tavern, in Colesville, three miles from my house. I went there and saw Jo Smith sit by a table and put a handkerchief to his forehead and peek into his hat and call out a word to Cowdery, who sat at the same table and wrote it down. Several persons sat near the same table and there was no curtain between them. [161]

References

Opening the Heavens

[41] Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma;’ Saints’ Herald 26 (October 1, 1879): 289-90; and Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma;’ Saints’ Advocate 2 (October 1879): 50-52.

[45] John A. Clark, Gleanings By the Way (Philadelphia: W J. and J. K. Simon, 1842), 224, 228, 230-31; part of this chapter on the Mormons appeared as a letter in the Episcopal Recorder 18 (1846): 94. This interview was also reprinted in “Modern Superstition.-The Mormonites.-No. I;’ Visitor, or Monthly Instructor (1841): 62, 63-64.

[93] “The Book of Mormon;’ Chicago Tribune, December 17, 1885, 3· The Tribune correspondent visited and interviewed Whitmer on December 15, 1885, at Whitmer’s home in Richmond, Missouri.

[98] Nathan A. Tanner Jr. to Nathan A. Tanner, February 17, 1909, photocopy of typescript, 5, Church Archives. The interview occurred in May 1886.

[112] William E. McLellin to “My Dear Friends;’ February 1870, Community of Christ Library-Archives; cited in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 233-34· Elizabeth Whitmer, born in 1815, was the daughter of Peter Whitmer Sr. and Mary Whitmer (and the sister of David Whitmer). She was fourteen years old when the translation was completed at her parents’ home in Fayette, New York. She married Oliver Cowdery in 1832.

[137] Gold Bible, No.6;’ Reflector, March 19, 1831, 126

[155] Howe, Mormonism Unvailed 14, 77, 100. Based on reports by Doctor Philastus Hurlbut

[158] Howe, Mormonism Unvailed 270-1. Here, Howe reprints a letter, dated February 17, 1834, written by Charles Anthon

[161] W. R. Hine’s Statement, Naked Truths about Mormonism 1 (January 1888) 2

[165] Charles Anthon to Reverend T.W. Coit Apnl 3, 1841, in Clark, Gleanings By the Way, 234-35.

[171] Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism (New York: D. Appleton, 1867), 29-49·

[177] “Joe Smith, Something about the Early Life of the Mormon prophet;’ Detroit Post and Tribune, December 3, 1877, 3; cited in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 2:517, 520. John Gilbert (1802-95) was principal typesetter and proofreader when the Book of Mormon was printed in 1829-30.

Early Mormon Documents 4 by Dan Vogel

[145] William S. Sayre to James T. Cobb, 31 August 1878, Theodore A. Schroeder Papers, Archives, Wisconsin State Historical Society, Madison, Wisconsin.

[355,358] [Frederick G. Mather], “The Early Mormons. Joe Smith Operates at Susquehanna,” Binghamton Republican, 29 July 1880.

[365] Frederick G. Mather, “The Early Days of Mormonism,” Lippincott’s Magazine (Philadelphia) 26 (August 1880): 199-203, 211.

Mourning for the loss of bomb victims Kathy Sheets and Steve Christensen (along with the aforementioned reverberations of fear) weren’t the only aftershocks from Hofmann’s strange attempt to make a fortune by casting doubt on the religion he no longer believed in. I was only three years old when the forgeries were exposed and Hofmann’s efforts went up in smoke. Once in a while I catch a slight whiff of burning amphibian while reading or researching Mormon history. Hearing about the experience of those who dealt with the letter in real time has helped me better understand how the letter still reverberates today.

First, the Salamander letter was another catalyst for Mormon historians to better evaluate the environment and culture of early Mormonism and the restoration of the gospel. Richard Bushman, Ronald Walker, Dean C. Jessee and other historians began plumbing the environmental influences with research questions that have spurred even richer historical treatments with more to come.³ Other researchers began (or continued) fashioning more naturalistic explanations for Joseph Smith’s claims. Marvin Hill, John Brooke, D. Michael Quinn and others have produced scholarship that carries hints of the salamander (and in some ways, the salamander originally carried a hint of what was already being discussed by certain scholars).⁴

Second, the Salamander letter is a reminder that prophets and leaders of the Church are not infallible and all-knowing. President Hinckley’s public statements when the letter was made known to the public make it clear he was not entirely convinced of the document’s authenticity, but for the time being accepted the judgment of certain document and history experts. Joseph Smith received a revelation reminding him that a prophet is not granted to know all the designs of people who seek to destroy the Church:

But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter (D&C 10:37).⁵

^{Third, the Salamander letter reminds current historians to take care in the use of historical sources. In some instances, this is more hindrance than help. Researcher Ardis Parshall noted that she has to be wary of using any document that passed through Hofmann’s hands. For instance, while researching information on the Utah War she located the diary of one observer containing many interesting details that will have to be substantiated elsewhere because Hofmann possessed it at one point. She notes that the Church archive catalog is very good about noting the Hofmann connection on every record involved.6}

Finally, the Salamander letter provides examples of how faithful members of the Church confronted difficult information. Consider Kevin Barney’s reaction:

The salamander letter is the only thing I ever recall encountering that gave my testimony a pretty good shake.  Lots of people today say they thought it was a forgery even then, but at the time mainstream historians pretty much all thought it was authentic.  I thought it was authentic.

But here’s a good lesson in what to do when you get rattled by something.  Instead of rolling over and playing dead and giving up, I rolled up my sleeves and went to the library.  I studied non-LDS historical articles on folk magic, having nothing to do with Mormonism.  These articles were focused on an earlier period–17th century, as I recall–but there was a clear continuity with what was going on in backwoods upstate New York in the early 19th century.  Once I had an historical context in which to understand these events, my concerns quickly melted away.  I would have been fine even if the letter proved to be genuine.  I haven’t been bothered by folk magic stuff since.  So for me this exposure was actually a good thing in the long run.

I was Gospel Doctrine teacher in my Ward at the time and I devoted an entire lesson to the letter. It was an awesome lesson, and that experience is a large part of the reason I’m an advocate of inoculation.  Because I knew how dangerous that material was, since it had even rattled me, yet at the end of that lesson I also knew that no one who sat in that room was going to lose faith over it.  That realization made a powerful impression on me.⁷

FAIR volunteer Suzie McKay explained how Kevin’s experience reminder her of her “fly ball” analogy:

When I was young, I had a problem mis-judging fly balls. I would instinctively run in on them, and when they were over my head, I would have to back-pedal or run back on them. It is much harder to catch a fly ball running back on it than running in on it. I learned to have my first step be *back*, even when it looked like it would be short. You can always run in on it if you misjudged it, but if you run in on it and have to go back on it, it’s a much more difficult catch.

With difficulties that throw us for a loop, we need to “step back” and study the issue in a way similar to what Kevin described. As Davis Bitton said in his “I don’t have a testimony of the history of the Church” talk, when one assesses in advance what the “worst case scenario” and “best case scenario” would be, the “worst case” is never remotely approached, and usually the “truth” is found to be somewhere between the two extremes. Managing expectations and “best & worst case” findings works wonders towards preventing shipwreck.⁸

These are just a few ripples in the water extending from the original explosion of document and gunpowder. In the face of future explosions it is wise to remember the patience exhibited by researchers whose efforts were borne out when the forgeries were exposed. Instead of rolling over and playing dead and giving up, we can roll up our sleeves and go to the library.

_____________________________________________________

FOOTNOTES

[1] For a full transcript and images of the letter, see BHodges, “Mark Hofmann and the Salamander Letter,” LifeOnGoldPlates.com, 15 October 2009.

[2] See the FAIR wiki article “Mark Hofmann/Church reaction to forgeries.” Steve Mayfield and George Throckmorton, key players in Hofmann’s prosecution, discussed the Hoffman case at the 2006 FAIR Conference. Videos of their presentation are available on YouTube. The two best full works on the case are Richard E. Turley, Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case, University of Illinois Press (1992) and Linda Sillitoe and Allen Roberts, Salamander: The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders, Signature Books (1990).

[3] BYU Studies Volume 24:4 (Fall 1984) contains interesting contemporaneous responses to the Salamander letter. See especially Ronald W. Walker, “Joseph Smith The Palmyra Seer.” Small elements of influence can be seen from Mark Ashurst-McGee’s work on seer stones and treasure guardians to Richard Bushman’s Smith biography Rough Stone Rolling and many works in-between.

[4] Perhaps two of the more obvious examples of works with “salamander-shaped holes” (to borrow a phrase from Stephen E. Robinson) are D. Michael Quinn’s Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (revised and enlarged edition, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998),  and Grant Palmer’s Insider’s View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) .

[5] See the FAIRwiki article, “Mark Hofmann/Church reaction to forgeries.”

[6] Ardis Parshall (of the “Keep-a-Pitchin’-In” blog), personal e-mail, 16 October 2009. First edition copies of Dean C. Jessee’s Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Shadow Mountain, 1984) included several not-then-debunked Hofmann forgeries. The second edition (2002) omits them, and notes the omission. D. Michael Quinn’s first edition of The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994) erroneously references a Hofmann forgery though they had been debunked for several years. The mistake was corrected for the 1997 printed edition. See the FAIRwiki article “Nauvoo Legion to rescue Joseph.”

[7] Barney, personal e-mail, 16 October 2009.

[8] McKay V. Jones, personal e-mail, 16 October 2009. See Davis Bitton, “I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church,” 2004 FAIR Conference presentation.

MormonThink does a good job at posing questions to their readers to get them to reconsider the plausibility of LDS truth claims. The authors, a coalition of Mormon and ex-Mormon skeptics [1] (some operating under a cloak of anonymity while accusing the Church of less than complete transparency), find previous faithful attempts by unofficial apologists to answer similar questions “unsatisfactory.” A FAIR review demonstrated that MormonThink’s own predominately negative answers were ill-informed, highly slanted (not objective as advertised), and fail to more than superficially engage faithful answers. MormonThink’s response to FAIR’s rebuttal is a mixed. On one hand, the response shows a commitment to accuracy and correcting some of its more egregious errors. On the other hand, the response justifies its failure to take FAIR more seriously by making an appeal to authority. MormonThink seeks the attention of General Authorities and they believe FAIR is usurping the Brethren’s role. This suggests to me that they are less concerned about answers and more concerned about getting attention for dissent.

While in the future the MormonThink site might correct misinformation and engage Mormon scholarship more adequately, it will likely remain slanted towards convincing their readers to come to negative conclusions about Mormon truth claims.  Nevertheless, the response to FAIR’s review is not all that encouraging that the writers will make rapid progress in first two areas. Let us look at a deficient response to one of the questions FAIR reviewed that MormonThink initially posed. The question is in italics, FAIR’s response in bullet points,  MormonThink’s rejoinder is blockquoted, and my discussion follows. I invite commenters on this blog to address anything that I fail to in MormonThink’s rejoinder.

If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.

• If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
• The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require the use of the physical interpreters or seer stones.
• Joseph did not regard the stone as “common”—he and the early saints referred to both the Nephite interpreters and his other seer stones as Urim and Thummim. Joseph was unable to translate when Martin Harris secretly swapped the seer stone with a common stone.

Staring into a dark hat pulled over one’s face, looking into a rock, could be characterized as “a spiritual growing experience” or it can also raise questions because it looks like a lot of hocus pocus to many intelligent, reasonable and objective investigators.  Most of the fair minded and good people in the world would likely agree that it looks like a scam in progress.  So it’s a reasonable question and the rock-in-the-hat-process will be subject to ridicule and critical questioning until it can be demonstrated that it is a viable method of translating ancient documents.  We are unaware of any credible scholars or linguists who use this method.  Church employees who provide translation services indicate that they do not use the rock-in-the-hat-method either.

It is also important to point out that early scribes of J Smith describe his activities as a reader, not a translator.  He saw English text on the rock in the bottom of his hat, the plates were never in view, and he dictated English sentences as they appeared.  Those who reported this reading method were Emma Hale Smith (wife), Isaac Hale (father-in-law), Michael Morse (brother-in-law), Martin Harris, and Joseph Knight Sr.  (For Primary sources and an excellent discussion of this issue, Grant H. Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, Signature Books, pages 2-5, and footnotes).

The responsibility to prove that J Smith was actually translating something is left with the church leaders.  At this point, the accumulated evidence after 180 years indicates that there were no golden plates, that Smith translated nothing, and God did not put sentences in English on the rock in his hat.  The first edition Book of Mormon provides ample evidence of that, due to the thousands of grammatical errors and contradictions.  An admission by Smith that this is true is evidenced by his campaign to clean up the book’s grammar and publish a revised and heavily-edited version in 1837.

Smith’s edited book, from 1830 to the present, has corrected approximately 4,000 errors in: (1) punctuation, (2) uneducated grammar (they was a runnin), (3) editing out obvious mistakes, and (4) changing 2 Nephi 11 to coincide with Smith’s evolving belief system about God.  The Book itself is why critics and skeptics wonder why Smith referred to the Book of Mormon as the “most correct book of any on earth.”  Thousands of revisions, is not evidence in favor of J Smith’s claims.  And investigators should not be belittled if they choose to keep asking “Did J Smith translate golden plates?”  It’s a reasonable question.

If God gave J Smith revelations about the ancient Americas, why does the Book of Mormon reflect 19th century American myths about American Indians?  Why don’t the large Nephite cities in the Americas turn up Nephite artifacts to support the book’s claims?  Why was Smith wrong about America’s language, culture, mode of transportation (horses and chariots), flora and fauna?  Why do the errors in the King James Version of the Bible that J Smith used (1796 version), show up in the Book of Mormon?  Why do unofficial apologists put BOM geography on coasters to be rolled all over the Americas to try and find a place for them that makes sense?  The official authorities say the Bom events occurred exactly where Smith said they did – North and South America.

Apostle Marion G. Romney reminded zealous apologists like FAIR to remember this.  “I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting, I drove him home. … When we got to his home I got out of the car and went up on the porch with him. Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’” (Marion G. Romney, in Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78.)  How do you reconcile the counsel from an esteemed apostle with all the errors in the foundational sacred text of Mormonism?

FAIR has no valid reason to complain that members ask legitimate and reasonable questions regarding the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, especially when unofficial answers contradict the answers of the general authorities and past presidents of the church.  Most of the humans on the planet who have considered the church’s claims as presented by the missionaries, also find them without merit.

I agree that FAIR shouldn’t complain when legitimate questions are asked. As a volunteer who spends many hours each week answering Ask the Apologist questions, I am concerned with  providing faithful and factual answers. I am always looking for ways to improve my ability to help those who have encountered criticism that may shake faith. However when questions assume invalid premises, they are not necessarily legitimate.

In the FAIR review, a corrective was suggested for one such faulty assumption. FAIR pointed out that Joseph did not consider his seer stone “common.” MormonThink defends the question’s premise by arguing  that Joseph’s seer stones share more in common with ordinary rocks than with the Nephite interpreters. They point out (using prejudicial, anachronistic language) that the Urim and Thummim [2] was found in a box and another stone used in translation was found in a well). Later they point out accounts that the box was found by Joseph receiving a vision with the aid of a seer stone. These two data points (its miraculous finding — though MormonThink would have their readers believe it is hocus pocus– and its intentional burial as a relic) suggest that the Nephite interpreters are to be considered uncommon.

However MormonThink has not been thorough in their analysis of the circumstances of which Joseph’s seer stones were found. There are accounts that he miraculously found both his white and brown seer stones through seer stone aided visions [3]. For the brown stone (the stone most attested to in the latter stages of the translation process), there are indications that it was buried as a relic. So while the Nephite interpreters have a more storied history and finding, this criteria MormonThink suggests does not sharply distinguish one set of seer stones as being common in contrast to the other set. Both discovery sequences tend to set both sets above commonly found stones, however.

In arguing against a data point of Martin swapping stones on Joseph caused him to not be able to translate, the MormonThink writers reverse their premise that the stone was common. The stone was apparently distinguishable enough for Joseph to detect the switch at the bottom of a “dark hat” that he reportedly used in a manner to eliminate all outside light. MormonThink also suggests that Joseph may have used the seer stone as a focusing device without addressing why the same would not be true of his use of the Nephite interpreters (if so, by this criteria both devices would be equally common or uncommon.)

I get the impression that the use of the hat is also used to support the notion that a seer stone might be common, in contrast to the interpreters. Accounts are mixed, but the majority that comment on the use of the spectacles in detail also indicate that Joseph put them in a hat to translate as well [4].

Another distinction that MormonThink appears to make is that the Nephite interpreters were in Moroni’s possession (giving the use of that object a sense of divine approval) while God (or any rational, objective being) would not approve of the use of a seer stone. Later in the response they cite agreement with FAIR to put stock in the accounts that Joseph saw the location of the plates in vision. However they fail to bring up accounts that Moroni instructed Joseph as to the plates’ location [5].

When they do bring the issue up elsewhere on their site they try to force their readers into forming a false dichotomy between the two data points, whereas FAIR synthesizes the two ideas. The result is that Moroni condoned the Prophet Joseph’s use of a seer stone. Once again, while MormonThink is entitled to their own opinions, they have failed to responsibly engage data and arguments that challenge their position. A more important data point that is ignored is found in accounts that Moroni took possession of Joseph’s seer stones after the loss of the 116 pages (there is one account Joseph got in trouble on another occasion as well). So both the Nephite interpreters and seer stones were in Moroni’s possession and it could thus be argued that both sets of devices were used under Moroni’s supervision and hence both were used with divine approval. Joseph Knight also indicated that  Joseph Smith looked into his seer stone to learn who he should marry following Moroni’s command. [6]

Later the MormonThink response asks why Joseph didn’t use his seer stones to locate the lost manuscript, oblivious to the likelihood that his seer stones had all been taken away. This further illustrates that MormonThink asks questions for the rhetorical purpose of convincing their readers of an absurdity, when the real problem is that the question assumes facts not in evidence. When these types of non-legitimate questions accumulate, it seems clear to me that they are expressly designed to raise doubts and asked not for sake of intellectual exploration. We see very little attempt to answer such questions beyond the citation of a few pages of Grant Palmer’s critical book.

The response acknowledges, but fails to engage the brief response that FAIR offers for Joseph using different objects during the translation process. FAIR response deserves more consideration as does Mark Ashurst-McGee’s A Pathway to Prophethood. Brant Gardner’s FAIR conference address is also a valuable contribution. MormonThink makes no attempt to try to understand why rational, objective people in Joseph Smith’s time would not automatically consider Joseph to be a scam artist. They appeal to presentist values to condemn Joseph Smith. Making comparisons with translations done by modern Church employees in a non sequitar. Modern church employees work with modern languages that they can learn from living people.

The nature of Book of Mormon’s translation as Joseph’s role as a translator is an interesting question to explore, but this is tangential to the originally posed questions. Yes investigators should feel free to ask such a question, but I have seen no indication that MormonThink is equipped to provide answers.

There is a nice body of literature that studies the subject that MormonThink writers show no sign of mastering. In consulting these, they would realize the data point they obtain from Palmer from multiple witnesses is among the least important ones to take into consideration about the translation process. The witnesses can neither report, first hand, what Joseph saw; nor is it likely that he told them given his reservation about describing the process beyond it being done by the gift and power of God. Therefore the accounts of Joseph seeing English text that tightly corresponded to characters on the plates is a matter of conjecture in those accounts.

Much more important is analysis of the received text itself. If Joseph was dictating text, why would the person or mechanism responsible for producing the English text care about punctuation if neither Joseph or his scribe were? Not even Oliver Cowdery, though a school teacher, was concerned much about grammar at the time according to one account [7]. More can be said of Joseph’s use of the word of translation, which had a wider connotation in 1830 or more could be said about speculative models that have been proposed about the translation process. I do not find MormonThink to be a helpful resource for someone investigating these issues.

[1] While the author of MormonThink’s rejoinder prefers to be considered a skeptic to being considered a critic, it is clear that the result of this professed skepticism is to consistently take a position against the Church of Jesus Christ’s truth claims. The skeptic in me believes that the few exceptions to that trend is primarily a strategy to gain credibility for their overall critical agenda. If MormonThink was truly more of a skeptical than critical site, they would spend a comparable amount of text introspectively scrutinizing their own positions and assumptions.

[2] MormonThink uses the term Urim and Thummim interchangeably with the Nephite interpreters. They have an article that makes this mistake in analyzing a quote from Lucy Smith and accuse FAIR of contradicting a 2008 manual containing that quote. However, it is clear the early saints sometimes used the term Urim and Thummim to refer to Joseph’s seer stones. One example comes from David Whitmer:  “Finally, when Smith had fully repented of his rash conduct, he was forgiven. The plates, however, were not returned, but instead Smith was given by the angel a Urim and Thummim of another pattern, it being shaped in oval or kidney form.” “The Book of Mormon;’ Chicago Tribune, December 17, 1885, 3 cited in John Welch as the 93rd of 203 translation accounts in his compilation found in Opening the Heavens. Note this account challenges another premise found in the original question, that of Moroni returning the plates.

[3] One such account is quoted in Mark Ashurst-McGee’s A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet,” (Master’s Thesis, University of Utah, Logan, Utah, 2000) p. 202 “Preside[n]t Young also said that the seer stone
which Joseph Smith first obtained He got in an Iron kettle 15 feet under ground. He saw it while looking in another seers stone which a person had. He went right to the spot & dug & found it” Wilford Woodruff’s Journal 5:382-3. Ashurst-McGee introduces and analyzes many other accounts of Joseph finding his seer stones. A summary statement is found on page 198. ” These are the methods Joseph Smith used in his acquisition of seer stones. He looked into a neighbor’s seer stone to find his first seer stone-a brown rock. Then Smith used this stone to find a white stone. This second stone is the well known seer stone that was unearthed on the property of Willard Chase under the pretense of digging a well. Next, at the angel Moroni’s direction, he used his white stone to find the Nephite “interpreters”-a large pair of clear, white, seer stone spectacles. Joseph Smith’s gradual development as a seer can be traced in part through his succession of seer stones and seer stone discoveries.”

[4] As can be seen by surveying the 203 accounts that Welch has compiled. A few accounts where Joseph is reported to have put the Nephite interpreters in the hat can be found in the FAIR wiki: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method

[5] The historical synthesis in FAIR wiki is far superior than anything that can be found on MormonThink’s site. See http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones

[6] Dean C. Jessee, “Joseph Knight’s Recollection of Early Mormon History,” Brigham Young University Studies 17:1 (August 1976)
[7] For example the cousin of Pomeroy Tucker the printing shop foreman when the Book of Mormon was published declared “Oliver Cowdery, the scribe of the prophet, was a young man of about twenty-four or twenty-five, about age of Smith. I had never known him previous to my return to Palmyra. He had been a school-teacher in country schools, and I am certain had little or no acquaintance with English grammar at that time.” Stephen S. Harding in Thomas Gregg’s 1890 publication The Prophet of Palmyra

National Catholic Reporter on Apostolic Succession (Some coverage of Francis Sullivan’s From Apostles to Bishops.)

Deacons Then and Now (I introduce David Horrell’s theory why stationary bishops took over for traveling apostles).

Bowman on Ordination (Response to an evangelical critic, where I argue that ordination is necessary for apostleship. It is interesting that Sullivan and some other Catholic scholars have made concessions to EV scholars that all early bishops could not necessarily trace a chain of ordinations back to the apostles. Some of Father Sullivan’s positions have been criticized by Father Michael McGuckian.)

The Apostolic Foundation (I survey some scholars regarding the expections for apostles derived from the OT and Qumran texts. More importantly check out Baptist’s R. A. Campell’s arguments that apostles were meant to be continually replaced, well after Matthias and James.)

Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity , The Editors’ Preface and Introduction (Some early attempts to summarize Nibley’s book on my Mormon and Catholic blog).

You will probably also need some familiarity with Ignatius and Clement, a couple of early Bishops. Some good written-by-a-Mormon resources:

Dave Nielsen, “Clement of Rome as Seen Through an Apostolic Paradigm” Studia Antiqua 5:2 (Fall 2007) Nielsen analyzes the letter written by Clement, a bishop of Rome usually dated around 96 AD, Nielsen approvingly cites Nibley’s observation that Clement does not claim apostolic authority. Later he relies on Nibley’s analysis that Rome became the most prominent bishopric by virtue of being the capital city of the Roman empire.

Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp: Three Bishops between the Apostles and Apostasy,” Ensign, Aug. 1976,  Anderson finds that New Testament bishops “were appointed and supervised by apostles and presided in a defined area.” Analyzing the writings of three early bishops, he concludes “all notably lack the quality [revelation] that enabled the apostles to establish the church.”

Some other notable LDS authored stuff about early Christian priesthood authority.

A. Burt Horsley, Peter and the Popes. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1989 accessible through the BYU’s Religious Studies Center website at (last accessed March 3, 2009) Horsley provides biographical data of the lives of Peter and his Catholic successors. He identifies Matthew 16:18′s “rock” as revelation and argues its loss greatly weakens such succession claims. While rejecting this idea and pointing out that the book’s intended audience is exclusively Mormon, one Catholic reviewer described it as “well- ordered and reasonably accurate” while being “a step toward dialogue and mutual understanding.” See Patrick Madrid, “A Mormon Eyes the Papacy,” This Rock Volume 1:3 March 1990

John A. Tvedtnes, Rejection of Priesthood Leaders as a Cause of the Great Apostasy posted on the FAIR website in 2004. Tvedtnes argues “that the loss of the apostles alone was [not] sufficient for the Lord to withdraw his authority from the earth.” In his view, remaining priesthood holders could conceivably be authorized by revelation to reform the presiding quorum. He combs the New Testament and patristic sources for evidence that wide spread rebellion prevented this from happening.

S. Kent Brown, “The Seventy in Scripture” By Study and Also By Faith, vol. 1 of Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990): 25—45.  Brown sifts through the Old Testament and other ancient texts and concludes “it now becomes clear why Jesus chose two sets of disciples, the twelve and the seventy. The twelve bore an obvious relation to the tribes of Israel, the seventy to the gentile nations of the earth as well as to an inner structural entity that existed within the tribal system of preexilic Israel.” Following this study up, John Tvedtnes in “The Lord Appointed Other Seventy Also” looks for hints in early writings for the apostolic mission of Seventy and the names of new members not originally appointed by Jesus, including perhaps, Paul and Barnabus.

C. Wilfred Griggs, “Paul: The Long Road From Damascus” . Griggs demonstrates that Paul’s line of authority is dependent on the Twelve. This counters the notion that Paul’s apostleship derived solely from a visionary experience.

Barry Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (Ben Lomond, CA : FAIR, 1999). In chapter 5, Bickmore points out the importance of ordination and takes issue with the “priesthood of all believers concept.” He looks into evidence for the persistence of New Testament offices, for example pointing out the Didache’s reference to traveling apostles and prophets. He discusses differences in patristic writings between the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods, but in contrast to Nibley associates bishops with Melchizedek high priests instead of Aaronic high priests.

Two articles covering the pre-Christian era, they set the stage for the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood in the Old World.

Daniel C. Peterson, “Authority in the Book of Mosiah” in FARMS Review 18/1 (2006)

David Larsen,  Two High Priesthoods [parts 1,2,3]  (publication forthcoming)

Finally three articles about moderating expectations when one does not find a carbon copy of the present LDS organization in the early Christian church:

Grant Underwood, “The ‘Same’ Organization the Existed in the Primitive Church” in Go Ye into All the World: the 31^st annual Sperry Symposium eds. Ray Huntington, Thomas Wayment, and Jerome Perkins (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book 2002)

Kevin Barney writes in A Tale of Two Restorations:

If one is to restore the early Christian church, there are two basic ways to go about the task. One would be to restore it the way Nauvoo Restoration restored Heber C. Kimball’s home: to attempt to recreate it as it was and preserve it in precisely that setting. This is a sort of museum approach to restoration, and this was the path followed by Alexander [Campbell]. The alternative approach would be to restore not only the forms of New Testament worship, but also the means, which entail revelation between God and man. This of course is the path followed by Joseph. If one restores the means as well as the forms, however, a paradox arises, for revelation by its very nature can take the church in new directions responsive to changing conditions. It may be that a church patterned after a first century Hellenistic ekklesia is not what is needed by the Saints in, say, twenty-first century Russia. Some in the early Church of this dispensation were not prepared for this possibility.

Blair Hodges Liken with Care is worth the read:

Title: A Pillar of Light: The History and Message of the First Vision
Author: Matthew B. Brown
Publisher: Covenant Communications, Inc.
Genre: Non-fiction
Year Published: 2009
Number of Pages: 268
Binding: Hardcover
ISBN10: 1-59811-795-5
ISBN13: 978-1-59811-795-0
Price: $23.95

Reviewed by Trevor Holyoak

In the October 1998 General Conference, Gordon B. Hinckley said that “our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision….Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration.” (Page ix.) In April 1984, James E. Faust pointed out that “since no one was with Joseph when this great vision took place in the wooded grove near Palmyra, a testimony concerning its reality can come only by believing the truthfulness of Joseph Smith’s own account or by the witness of the Holy Ghost, or both.” (Page x.) With these statements in mind, it is not surprising that the First Vision has been one of the favorite things for critics of Joseph Smith to attack. In this book, Matthew Brown lays out the historical facts from which one can be helped to gain a testimony of the event, strengthen existing convictions, and help answer any doubts or confusion arising from critics’ claims.

The book starts out by giving the background in which the First Vision occurred, beginning with Joseph Smith’s birth and upbringing through 1820. This includes the family’s move to New York (and gives evidence for when it happened), as well as their finances, work, and education. It also speaks of his parents’ religious backgrounds, and of the religious climate in the area at that time, both of which fostered Joseph’s interest in religion.

Chapter two goes into detail about the “religious excitement” of the time. Brown gives a local camp meeting in 1818 as a probable candidate for the beginning of the events that led to Joseph’s inquiry in the grove, followed by another meeting in 1819 in a nearby town. There is also evidence given for visits from Methodist preachers to Palmyra in 1819 and 1820. There is a chart included that shows articles from the Palmyra Register about revivals in 1820, as well as a timeline of Smith family relocations from 1816 to 1820.

Elements of the First Vision are covered in detail in chapter 3, including the probable date, the location of the grove, the prayer Joseph gave, the opposition he faced as he began praying, the pillar of light and the personages that appeared within, and the instructions he received. The details are taken from many different sources and help the reader towards getting a better understanding of what happened.

The following chapter discusses what happened after the vision. It speaks of how it affected Joseph physically, emotionally, and spiritually. It also tells us about those it is known that he told about the experience and why he might have been hesitant to share it, even among his family. The resulting persecution is also discussed, including the account of a Presbyterian woman who lived nearby.

The next two chapters talk about what Joseph learned, and whether it was an actual visitation or a vision. The language of the written accounts of the vision is discussed, down to the meaning of significant words. Space is also devoted to the topic of the nature of God, as there have been questions raised as to whether Joseph’s concept of God and the Godhead evolved over time.

There are several different versions of the First Vision that were written by different people at different times, and chapter seven gives a thorough analysis of the 1832 account. It is compared to the 1838 account, and it is shown that they are very similar, and that many of the things that critics have claimed are missing in the 1832 version are at least implied. It is also shown that the 1832 account is built on a framework of biblical scriptures, which was probably done to help counteract the negative reactions he had received.

It has been said by critics that the First Vision narrative evolved over time, and that many early members of the church during Joseph’s lifetime were not even aware of it. Chapter eight addresses these issues, drawing from documentary evidence relating to William I. Appleby, George Q. Cannon, Oliver Cowdery, Orson Hyde, Andrew Jenson, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt, Parley P. Pratt, George A. Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, William Smith, Orson Spencer, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Brigham Young.

The following chapter then deals with 16 common criticisms, such as “In 1835 Joseph Smith identified his First Vision visitors as angels instead of Deities,” “The First Vision story became more elaborate over time,” “In 1838 the Prophet changed the story of the origin of his prophetic call in order to offset a leadership crisis,” and “The LDS Church seldom publicized the First Vision until after Brigham Young’s death in 1877.” There is also a chart comparing eight different versions of the vision written between 1832 and 1844, which helps to illustrate that there is actually a great amount of consistency between the various texts.

The remainder of the text in the book is made up of appendices. The first one includes documents about the First Vision that were written by Joseph Smith and others during his life time. It includes the previously mentioned eight versions, as well as the JST version of Psalms 14:1-4. The second appendix gives a chronological list of recitals and references to the First Vision, from ca. 23 April 1820 to 24 May 1844. It also goes into detail on the 1827 comments from Martin Harris and the 1834 dispute with Mr. Ellmer, which both show that people were aware of the First Vision at those times.

Appendix three demonstrates the interdependence of several of the First Vision accounts. For example, it shows that the Oliver Cowdery account of 1834 relied on the 1832 account by Joseph Smith, and that the Smith account of 1838 in turn used the 1834 Cowdery document. This shows again that the various accounts are much more consistent than critics would lead us to believe. Appendix four then shows the dependence of Doctrine and Covenants 84 on the 1832 account, which helps date the 1832 version to between September 23 and November 27.

I did find a few small problems with the book, but they are minor and should not detract much from it. There are some typographical errors, and most of the table of contents is off by two pages. The index was also not thorough enough to be as helpful as I would have liked.

This book does a good job of covering all the criticisms one might find on the Internet or in certain books. The various accounts are shown to be very much in harmony with each other, and through them the reader can gain a better understanding of the First Vision and the early life of the prophet Joseph Smith. I would highly recommend this book to anyone that is interested in the topic, especially those that have encountered criticisms.

Clark Braden’s account is hopelessly garbled, but that doesn’t deter many critics from Fawn Brodie to Grant Palmer from using him as a source to tar Joseph Smith’s character. Braden’s family lived in the right area at the time of the incident, but Clark himself was just an infant. As will be seen, it is likely that his informant was not Eli Johnson. Furthermore, as Dale Broadhurst, one who sympathizes with Braden’s promotion of the Spalding theory, observed from his numerous published errors that “Clark Braden was prone to exaggeration and ‘loose’ quotations of others assertions, comments, etc. The allegations and proofs offered in his speeches should be read with that fact in mind.”

The moderator at the Braden-Kelley debate was Arthur Deming, the son of a Jack Mormon sheriff. Minor Deming had made many enemies for the protection he gave the Saints after Joseph Smith’s martyrdom and died shortly after. Young Arthur became bitter against the Mormons, essentially blaming them for having to serve an apprenticeship (as orphaned or fatherless teens were often made to do) to learn a trade that turned out to be useless for him.  Arthur Deming also prefaces his collection of anti-Mormon affidavits as being a consequence of the debate. “Mr. Braden, the opponent of Mormonism, was unable to satisfactorily prove some points he claimed, and he engaged a party to collect evidence to sustain his position. The party did not accomplish much and I undertook the business.”

So a year later Deming followed up on the tar and feathering account with Newell K. Whitney’s hostile brother who had never embraced Mormonism and who had remained in the Kirtland area. Deming received a very different story from the Rev. Whitney, one that presents a more plausible motivation.

He stated that one of the party who tarred and feathered Sydney Rigdon and Jo Smith at John Johnson’s, in Hiram, O., informed him that Rigdon said to their assailants he presumed they were gentlemen, but Jo Smith fought until overpowered. A doctor present offered to castrate Jo and said he would warrant him to live. It was not done. Several of Johnson’s sons were of the party. They were angry because their father was urged by Jo and Rigdon to let them have his property. He finally did give them some of it, and moved to Kirtland and kept tavern, and his son Luke became one of the first Mormon Twelve Apostles.

By any historical methodology for weighing sources, Deming’s account trumps Braden’s. While both are extremely late. the latter is of unknown provenance and hence even less reliable. The former is third hand ( Johnson brother -> unidentified mobber ->S. F. Whitney -> Deming) unless the unnamed mob snitch was John Johnson Jr. The falsifiable errors Deming makes are less severe. Contra Braden, Marinda had no brother named Eli. Working against Deming, is that at most only one of Johnson’s son’s (not several as claimed) could have been in the mob. However it will take some argumentation to establish that fact. Let’s look at each of the relevant members of the immediate Johnson family to see where their sympathies were at.

Marinda Nancy Johnson

While she (much) later became a plural wife of Joseph Smith, she wrote unsolicited in her diary that Joseph never behaved improperly towards her. “Here I feel like bearing my testimony that during the whole year that Joseph was an inmate of my father’s house I never saw aught in his daily life or conversation to make me doubt his divine mission.”

John Johnson Sr.

John Sr. came to Joseph’s rescue when he heard the commotion, but got clocked when mistaken as a mobber by a fellow rescuer. David Whitmer miraculously healed his broken bone.  Later John Sr. faithfully served on the high council, which is inconsistent if he suspected Joseph behaved in an untoward manner with his daughter.

Elsa Johnson

Earlier Joseph had healed her arm, an act that ironically helped convert one of the mob’s leaders Ezra Booth for the time being. She helped clean the tar off of Joseph Smith and hence can not have been sympathetic to the mob’s aims.

Lyman Johnson

Whitney failed to note that Lyman was also called to be an apostle, in addition to Luke. This is in itself makes it highly unlikely that either Lyman or Luke harbored any ill feelings towards Joseph Smith. Lyman also has an alibi, he was on an eastern mission for much of 1832. According to the Saints without Halos website’s chronology, he was with Orson Pratt continuously from Feb. 3 to Nov. 8. More importantly a source that trumps either Braden or Deming by being earlier and only second hand and having no (as yet) falsified information likely stems from this mission, but I have yet to see any Braden apologist adequately deal with it. From Orson Pratt we have:

At a meeting held in Piano, Illinois,  Sept. 12,1878, Apostle Orson Pratt explained the circumstances connected with the coming forth of the revelation on plural marriage. He refuted the statement and belief of those present that Brigham Young was the author of that revelation [Section 132 in the Utah Doctrine and Covenants]; showed that Joseph Smith, the Prophet, had not only commenced the practice of that principle himself, and further taught it to others, before President Young and the Twelve had returned from their missions in Europe, in 1841, but that Joseph actually received revelation upon that principle as early as 1831. He said, “Lyman Johnson, who was very familiar with Joseph at this early date, Joseph living at his father’s house [near Hiram, Ohio, beginning in September 1831], and [Lyman] who was also very intimate with me [Orson], we having traveled on several missions together, told me himself that Joseph had made known to him as early as 1831, that plural marriage was a correct principle. Joseph declared to Lyman that God had revealed it to him, but that the time had not come to teach or practice it in the Church, but that the time would come.” To this statement Elder Pratt bore his testimony.  (Historical Record 6:230 cited disapprovingly in Price)

If Orson Pratt’s recollection is correct, than it isn’t possible to claim that Joseph was accused of being a womanizer (specifically in the cases of Fanny Alger and Marinda Johnson. Eliza Winters is another story, but it also falls flat.) before he received a revelation on plural marriage. Like Braden and Deming, Pratt can be dismissed as being late and agenda driven. But why should we reject Pratt, but accept the weaker Braden source? I hope that the historians who take the minority, contrarian view, championed by Signature will one day coherently address that question.

Luke Johnson

Luke was called on a mission at the same time as his brother in section 75. His first companion, William McClellin, fizzled out after a short while so he returned and was reassigned with Seymour Brunson. Luke was also gone during the tarring according to Saints without Halos’ chronology. Luke ‘s 1858 account is thus second hand, but over 25 years earlier than Deming and Braden. It is clear that his loyalties lie with Joseph Smith and his parents and not the mob in his account. He makes an error in dating it to Fall of 1831, but offers information not found in Joseph Smith’s history. Noticeably telling is the absence of any mention of his brothers being involved or a motive behind the attack. However, I don’t want to make too much of an argument from silence.

Olmsted Johnson

Olmstead also does not seem to be a mob participant. In Joseph Smith’s history he was just visiting the Johnson farm. Olmstead failed to convert to Mormonism and soon went traveling. “He went to the southern states and Mexico, and on his return, he took sick, and died in Virginia.”  Although, the history is vague about the timing of the visit, Olmsted is out of the narrative before the tarring incident is covered.

John Johnson Jr.

There is really only two reasons I am aware of that may point to John Jr. being a member of the mob. The first  is that he is included in a list of apostates that has other known members of the mob. That list is sandwiched in between Olmsted’s visit and the tarring incident. The second is that Deming’s theory of motive regarding  property becomes tenuous if at least one son wasn’t worried about his inheritance. Other apostates would not feel as threatened that a plot was afoot to deprive them of their property. As I allude to earlier, the property motive is much more plausible for the mob’s extra-legal maneuvers than accusations of sexual misconduct. Attempts to harmonize the two extremely post-hoc justifications run the risk of Occam’s wrath. However, I believe an even more plausible explanation, if one had to just pick one, is religious bigotry. To do this, I will now look at some Johnsons who were uncles rather than brothers of Marinda.

Uncle Edward Johnson

An Edward Johnson also appears on list of apostates, but beyond that, there may be no reason to connect him to the mob’s activities.  Looking at John Johnson Sr.’s genealogy, he had a brother named Edward who moved to  Portage Co., Ohio around 1831 and he may be the apostatizing Edward. John Sr. had moved there (in Hiram) around 1820, but the rest his brothers and sisters appear to have maintained residency in New Hampshire.

Uncle Eli Johnson

It is clear that there was an Eli Johnson at the tarring who was in charge of the tar bucket. It may be that a second uncle, Eli, tagged along with Edward on his move to Ohio for awhile.  He was also known for his religious persecution of those differing from his Calvinist/Presbyterianism worldview. He hated Universalists with their idea of no Hell, so it is real possibility that Joseph and Sidney’s vision of the Degrees of Glory set him off. So he does fit a mobber profile, if this is our man.

Eli was partially blind, fond of drink, disgruntled, the village tale-bearer, and lived in outhouses (apparently not a big property owner). He is known to have lived his last 50 years in Battleboro, NH (1809-1859), posing further difficulty for him being in Ohio for long and being Clark Braden’s source. He would have been around 50 when Joseph was tarred and feathered and not easily mistaken for Marinda’s brother.

Let us just say if this Eli Johnson is your star witness, your Joseph Smith history has major credibility problems. If this isn’t your Eli, than Eli is not a relative and it is even less likely that he would be aware of a sexual impropriety that apparently didn’t bother the Johnson family and was denied by Marinda herself.

We were then able to have rye bread and soon the potatoes came on so we fared well again. By fall we had some apples and peaches. I went to live with Solomon for awhile to help him boil his sorghum. By this time it was spring and I helped Father drive his team and get the ground ready to plant corn, beans, and potatoes and wheat. After the crops were in I went to live with Samuel Alger in 1815. I stayed there through the fall and winter. My sister, Clarrisa was at mothers with her young baby, Fanny. She stayed through part of the summer, sometimes her boy, Eli, was with her and at times he stayed with his Father or his uncle Solomon. Samuel Alger went to stay with his wife and children and hauled wood with a man by the name of Adams. In the spring they returned home. He gave me twenty-five cents to bare my expenses and I started home in March, 1816.

Even Mormon history is susceptible to such critiques as the priesthood has developed to accommodate growth, reassess appropriate qualifications, and delegate duties. David Whitmer was an early such critic, attributing the 1831 introduction [1]  of the offices of bishop and deacon to Sidney Rigdon’s Campbellite [2] influence. The 1830 church, in his view, was patterned after the three offices found in the Book of Mormon [3], that of  elder, priest, and teacher. It is difficult to provide an adequate summary of Whitmer’s later views, but perhaps a general observation will serve, namely that he was opposed to developments that contributed towards a hierarchical organization (such as the 1831 endowment that elevated some elders to the  high priesthood [4]). 

One recurring pattern I see in my study of ancient and modern priesthood is  that when two offices or priesthoods are given overlapping responsibilities, it can create rivalries and turf wars. Some modern scripture was given that anticipates some of these problems. Consider, for example D&C 20 which gives both elders and priests the right to administer the sacrament. I read such passages  in terms of who should preside over or decide who administers the sacrament when only representatives from those two offices are present. The ordinance of the sacrament is equally valid whether a priest or elder actually performs it, the important thing is to remove contention by having a clear hierarchy.

On the other hand, there have been historically been two schools of thought on who should be preferred to actually administer the sacrament if Aaronic priests and MP holders are present. The old school believed that having higher authorities perform the responsibilities gave the sacrament greater dignity. But this was killing off the AP who were stuck only with the most uninspiring tasks like building clean-up. The new school stressed the AP’s role as a training priesthood for young men and for higher authorities to delegate more tasks downward so they can concentrate on their duties that don’t overlap with the AP. Some fascinating history can be found in William G. Hartley’s article From Men to Boys, which contains about everything I would want to say about modern deacons and a rationale for departing from scriptural formulas on age requirements [5]. Please forgive my roundabout way of introducing the article, but ideas about deacons often have to be extracted from studying dynamics between higher offices. The lowly office of deacon doesn’t get a lot of literary or scholarly attention.
 
A study of deacons might more properly begin by proposing definitions and tackling developments in chronological order starting in the New Testament. So somewhat belatedly, let me use Kevin Barney’s definition:

The English word deacon is simply a transliteration of the Greek noun diakonos, which is derived from the verb diakoneo (a compound of the preposition dia and the verb akoneo). The basic meaning of the verb is to serve, to minister, especially in the sense of to provide the necessities of life. So this verb would be used when talking about one who serves food and drink at table, for instance. It is very appropriate to describe one who passes the emblems of the sacrament. The word can be used in a nontechnical sense, simply one who serves, or in the technical sense of one who holds the priesthood office of a deacon.

One can divide New Testament writing into an early stage and a late stage. Acts contains some useful historical information, but scholars typically call attention to Luke harmonizing early developments in light of later ones. Paul’s letters have also been sorted into early and later periods. It has been noticed that early sources present a threefold ministry of apostles, prophets, and teachers (1 Cor. 12:28-29, Acts 13:1). Later sources expand to a fivefold ministry of apostles, prophets, evangelists (sub-apostolic missionaries?), pastors (presbyter-bishops?), and teachers (Eph. 4:11, 20:17,28 note that “presbyter” is interchangeable with “elder” and “bishop” is interchangeable with “overseer” and Luke may be anachronistically harmonizing elders with bishops. [6]). It is interesting that these lists are presented in greatest to least order as are lists of names in the New Testament. So Acts 13, using the pigeonhole principle, presents Barnabus as a “prophet” and Paul as merely a “teacher.” Acts presents Paul as someone who slowly arose in the ranks under Jerusalem based authorities, despite what Rob Bowman sees in Paul’s letters, mainly that early on Paul claimed to be an apostle equal and independent of the Twelve [7].

It is a outside the scope of this blog to try to figure out if and where the seventy, patriarchs, Aaronic priests, or Mechizedek high priests fit into the threefold or fivefold schema. Feel free to speculate in the comments. A deacon was primarily considered a bishop’s helper, so we have to consider the adapting role of a bishop in early Christianity to understand deacons. Nibley, in Apostles and Bishops, provides a useful classification that might correspond roughly with our division of responsibilities we see between the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthood, although these categories should not be taken as mutually exclusive.

This classification is between traveling and stationary authorities (p. 19-21), especially drawing from the Didache(and the analysis done by influential scholar Adolf von Harnack), a document contemporary with some of the later New Testament writings. (I lean towards the scholarly consensus that date the final version of letters to Timothy and Titus very much after Paul’s death, even though that puts me somewhat in unorthodox territory.) The Didache clearly shows travelling prophets and apostles as the superiors of local bishops and elders[8]. However it provides tests that local officials can submit to “wandering prophets” to determine their legitimacy. Another test is given in John’s contemporaneous epistles, which ironically may have been used–inappropriately of course –when a local official would no longer receive John.

With apologies to Scott Petersen, one might amend his book’s title to “Where have all the traveling prophets gone?” A traditional explanation has been that apostles and prophets were merely supposed to lay the foundation of the Church, and founding time eventually expired [9]. The apostolic charge of missionary work given in Matthew 28:19 became regarded as sufficiently accomplished[10]. Historically we see the role of general leadership being absorbed by letter writing campaigns led by bishops of secularly prominent cities and local bishops meeting in territorial councils. In voicing his suspicion that leadership of the church passed from travelling authorities to stationary ones is an historical dark spot, Nibley foreshadowed his future studies [11] about “When the Lights Went Out.”

A relatively recent scholar, David Horrell [12], noted that nobody since Harnack has tried to explain the transition in any detail. He utilized a household development model for the rise of bishops that Nibley did not. Basically this model has bishops arising out of the family patriarchs that often hosted church services. Early Christians were frequently cast out of synagogues, and initially having no dedicated buildings of their own, were forced to meet in the homes of the more wealthy patrons. These wealthy patriarchs would naturally be called to positions of responsibility and leadership in the local church. The qualifications for bishops and deacons in Timothy and Titus resemble “household codes” or societal rules for running a respectable household in a community.

These codes tended to further elevate the position of the hosting male leader in comparison to his wife, children, servants, slaves, and guests. One sees the hint of a class warfare problem that could emerge between wealthy local leaders and the poor travelling leaders that depended upon (and could be accused of abusing in the Didache) a host’s generosity. Horrell’s model also has the benefit of explaining the decline in prominence of women in the early church. Women like Junia and Priscilla were mentioned in the same breath as evangelizing apostles, but the pastoral letters effectively silenced such activity. You heard it here first, but the a priori rejection of female prophetic ability seems to have been an early sign of the apostasy.

The main idea I want to get across is that the pastoral letters impose the same requirements on deacons as they do on bishops. Furthermore, these requirements regarding marriage were cultural expediencies and not necessarily regarded as revelation. According to Helmut Koester, a factor in the canonization of Paul’s (and deutero-Pauline) writings was the political stability they ensured and not any claim to inspiration (which was often detrimental for canon selection, consider the controversy over the book of Revelation, for instance) [13].

Much more can be said about the development of the office of a deacon drawing on patristic sources, Nibley, and other scholars. However, I have already greatly exceeded the length of an ideal blog entry (3 paragraphs and the truth!).

Notes and References 

[1] Recommended treatments of early Mormon priesthood developments are John Tvedtnes’ Organize My Kingdom and Gregory Prince’s Power from on High.

[2] For a good introduction to Campbellite restoration thought see Kevin Barney in A Tale of Two Restorations:

[3]  One might profitably ask why there was a difference in the priesthood organization in between the old world and the new world in ancient times.

In the new world, some Nephites held the Melchizedek Priesthood (MP) from the time of Lehi to the Nephi that was contemporary with Jesus. One could make the argument that the Nephites, who were not descendants of Aaron or Levi, only ever held the MP.  When the Book of Mormon talks about priests and teachers, it is probably describing MP priests and teachers before and after Christ’s appearance. To read further about Book of Mormon priesthood concepts, see Dan Peterson’s article. 

In the Old World it is apparent that nobody was considered to hold the MP in the time immediately before Christ. I recently wrote a piece that I hope will appear in Mormon Times, answering the related question of when Christ was ordained to the priesthood. The gist of my response was that Christ was expected to restore that missing authority especially in light of Hebrews 5. Putting these examples together, one might say that in the presence of the MP, the AP might seem to be optional or unnecessary. Still there might be good reasons in the NT and in our modern dispensation for keeping the AP around for practical reasons:

1. Together the two priesthoods teach sound organizational principles, exalting the spiritual over the temporal.
2. The AP can act like a training priesthood for the MP.
3. During a transistion period the AP can act like a forerunner for the restoration of the MP much like John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus.
4. In times of partial apostasy, the Lord may choose to leave a lesser priesthood functioning while removing the MP from a more active role.

The last point  this was arguably the impetus behind ordaining Aaron to begin with, due to the rebellion at Mount Sinai.  A second century writing, The Shepherd of Hermas, describes the diminishing of Christ’s church, albeit in allegorical terms. Nibley argues that after apostles died out, the would be successors (the bishops) were  primarily considered Aaronic in nature in his book Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity.  Even in our dispensation Bishops have strong temporal duties and ties to the AP, even though they have also been given MP responsibilities and are not primarily identified as a descendent of Aaron or Levi.  After Moses set up the AP,  the MP was not entirely taken from Israel.  For example, I regard Samuel, David, Solomon, Elijah, and Lehi as MP holders. It appears that MP holders and AP holders at times in the OT had somewhat of rivalry (see the Two High Priesthoods by David Larsen  [parts 1,2,3] for details. 

So I would speculate that it would not have made much sense for Christ to give the Nephites the AP as well, because they did not inherit a strong AP tradition to begin with and couldn’t wait to scrap parts of the Law of Moses. The Jerusalem converts had a stronger attachment to the Law of Moses and retaining the AP probably made for a smother transistion. As a restoration of all things, it makes sense for our dispensation to inherit from both traditions, even though things have been adapted for our needs.

[4] See John Tvedtnes in The Evolution of the Term “Priesthood” for a good response to David Whitmer. Above, I infer Whitmer’s position on bishops and deacons from his reaction to high priests.

[5] I also like how Louis Midgley addressed these issues in a response to an inquiry to the FAIR list. He wrote:

But there is another side to this issue. I believe that when I teach in or for the Church, I am functioning as a Teacher. When I tidy up the chapel or set up or take down chairs tables, shovel snow, serve food at a dinner or a host of other similar or related things, I am acting as a Deacon. Much if noteven most of what gets done in the typical LDS congregation–Branch or Ward and also Stake–is Aaronic Priesthood stuff. We should always keep in mind that a Bishop is essentially in charge of the Aaronic Priesthood. His role as watchman on the tower is to keep an eye on all those basic things that threaten and afflict the community of Saints, and most of these are matters of serving tables, teaching and blessing others in various ways–hence Aaronic priesthood stuff. I do not believe that here below we ever really outgrow those basic and pedestrian commissions except by our own omissions.
In addition, in order for the proper training of our dispositions–that is, the formation of certain secondary though essential virtues–we must all start at an early age. Hence we all need to begin with very basic, easy, routine, familiar things and then work up to those matters that involve the mysteries of true holiness.
The movement towards ordaining young kids to the Priesthood was driven, it seems to me, by the need to get the attention of young boys and train them for basic service in the Kingdom and ready them as much as possible to serve teach and bless. If there is something anomalous about young boys being Deacons, one need also look at have tens of thousands of young fellows trying hard to be Elders by carrying that name in the world as missionaries.
There is even something stunning about identifying ourselves as Saints, since many in the Church hardly begin to qualify for that exalted title. So much of what we do can be described as now, but also not quite yet–that is, we are striving for something always beyond our reach. This is, perhaps, why one of the three Christian virtues is hope, which points us to the future in anticipation of wonders we can now hardly grasp.

[6] Such commentary on Acts 20 can be found in many sources. See for instance Catholic scholar Francis A. Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops (2001) p. 64

Needless to say, this speech was composed by Luke, who in this respect followed the practice of ancient historians. In it, Paul warns his hearers about what will happen in the future, when he is no longer with them. Written some twenty-five years after Paul’s death, this more likely reflects the situation ofthe writer’s time than of Paul’s. For this reason, scholars bdieve that it tells us more about local ministry in Pauline churches during the subapostolic period than about the church of Paul’s own time.

[7] I began a critique of Bowman’s series against Mormon interpretations of priesthood activity in the New Testament in an earlier post Bowman on Ordination. See the link there in to see Bowman’s actual positions. I really don’t have much to say about his take on Paul other than to re-assert Griggs’ position, which I can easily find support (and differences of opinion as well) for among non-Mormon scholars.

[8] For an alternative view of the Didache see John Meier, Antioch and Rome (1984) p. 81-84. His position is that by the time the document was written, the big cities like Antioch were already self sufficient upon local leaders and that the instructions in the Didache applied only to rural areas.

[9] I would like to quote an articulate argument on this, not because my fellow Mormons will agree, but in hopes that it will raise the bar in discussions that take place with other Christians. On p. 24, Sullivan (2001) writes:

 The role of the Twelve as symnbolizing the twelve patriarchs of Israel meant that they had a unique role to play, precisely as a group of twelve, in the very origin of the church. This called for the choice of a twelfth man to take the place of Judas, prior to Pentecost so that on that day Peter “stood up with the Eleven” (Acts 2:14) when he gave his first witness to the risen Christ. On the other hand, some years later, when James, the son of Zebedee and brother of John was put to death by Herod (Acts 12:2), there was no question of again completing the number of the Twelve. By then the initial “foundation time” was completed.

[10] Nibley(2005) had a little bit of fun with an argument that the apostles almost instantaneously fulfilled their Great Commission on p. 7

[Giovanni Battista Pighi] quotes John Chrysostom to prove this, forgetting the worried conclusion that Chrysostom draws from this interesting premise: “If that is so, then the end should have come long ago, since it was explicitly stated that when the apostles had once preached to all nations, then would the end come.” Chrysostom’s only possible conclusion, which he swallows with a wry face, is that the apostles cannot have accomplished their mission after all, since the church is still on the earth.

[11] The Editor’s Postscript to Nibley’s book does a great job tying in this early study to his later work.  See page 40 and 85-86 for Nibley’s discussion of the lights going out when a “traveling apostalate” ceased to exist.

[12] David Horrell, Leadership Patterns and the Development of Ideology in Early Christianity  Sociology of Religion v58 p323-41 Winter ’97

The focus of this paper is the distinction between two forms of leadership which also contrast and conflict in important ways in early Christianity, namely itinerant leadership and resident leadership (that is, leadership from those who are located in a particular community, over which they exercise leadership). I will argue that there are important distinctions to be drawn between these two patterns of leadership, that in general it is legitimate to speak of a development or transformation from itinerant to resident leadership in early Christianity, that there is evidence which reflects the tensions and difficulties which the diverse patterns of leadership caused, and that the transference of power from itinerant to resident leadership is a sociologically significant transformation which may be
connected with the development of more socially conservative patterns of ethical instruction (especially the “household codes.”)

[13]Helmut Koester, “Writings and the Spirit: Authority and Politics in Ancient Christianity,” HTR 84 (1991)353-72. While I am not entirely comfortable with Koester’s views, I am comfortable with calling the marriage requirement for deacons a cultural or political preference.

1. Why does the Mormon church still teach that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God after he made a false prophecy about a temple built in Missouri in his generation (D&C 84:1-5)

This was not a prophecy, but a command from God to build the temple. There’s a difference. Jesus said people should repent; just because many didn’t doesn’t make Him a false messenger, simply a messenger that fallible people didn’t heed.

Learn more here: Independence temple to be built “in this generation”

Of course even the expanded article doesn’t consider all the possible solutions that can be made. So here is one of my personal speculations I would like to share:

I actually think it is easy (almost trivial) to prove that Section 84 is a commandment. The first publication of a selection of Joseph Smith’s revelations to the early Saints was called the Book of Commandments. The Saints would go to Joseph Smith to obtain a”commandment,” which was their preferred term even over “revelation” or “prophecy.” So each section, 84 included, was primarily a commandment. Hence we have the preface for Book of Commandments stating:

37 Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

So section 84 is a commandment by definition. The Saints were commanded to build a temple. A question is if it was just a commandment or it was both a commandment and a prophecy. Actually it turns out that this is a distinction without a difference, because if it is a prophecy, its fulfillment is conditioned by a sufficient number of moral agents choosing to obey the commandment and other moral agents choosing not to prevent compliance with the commandment. In other words, agency frequently trumps prophecy. Prophecy is often conditional, whether the condition has been made explicit or not. Prophecy inspires us to see what could be and does not necessarily tell us what has to be. There are exceptions to that rule, as I think God can use his agency to carry out of his promises, especially regarding salvation.

D&C 124:49, 51 makes it clear to me that the Lord withdrew his commandment to build a temple in Jackson county. He accepted “the will for the deed” when he accepted the Saints’ offering. The underlying purpose for building a temple in Jackson County has arguably already been fulfilled. That generation of Saints was not deprived of any temple blessings, they simply built temples elsewhere. I think that after the Saints learned they could not recover their land, the place for the temple became negotiable in the Lord’s eyes. Zion is wherever the Saints gather, sometimes the Saints move to Zion as a designated place and sometimes the place (Zion) moves with the Saints.

If there is any future in conjunction with the temple site in Jackson County, I hope we never put a building there. Why? Because I would rather view dedicated sites there and in Far West as outdoor temples. After all temples are built (at least in part) to symbolize the Garden of Eden which in turn symbolizes heavenly/paradisaical realm(s) where God dwells or visits. I would rather see a Garden of Eden restored. Building a temple there just to more literally fulfill a prophecy would undercut the learning experience that we as a people gained about agency and the persistence of God and his covenant people finding ways to honor (or find a satisfactory substitution for) their promises even after setbacks make the original terms impossible. The atonement enables reconciliation, by allowing for substitutions to be made on our end of the covenant, so why not allow God the same privilege?

I don’t really expect anyone to agree with my take on things. If you asked me a year from now, I might not even have the same understanding. Nibley’s Christian Envy of the Temple  gives me pause as I think about the consequences of over-spiritualizing temple elements to compensate for a profound sense of loss. Maybe  it is actually a good thing the wiki doesn’t cover all possible speculations ! So I ask, what are some of your solutions to when critics raise charges of false prophecy?

When considering the relationship of Zina and Joseph, it is natural in today’s voyeuristic society to ask a blunt question: Was Joseph Smith sexually active with Zina as one of his plural wives?

Critics and historians over the years have come to differing opinions, all of which have been considered in my studies, and some of those considerations are found in the FAIR presentation. There is one piece of evidence sometimes cited as irrefutable proof of sexual relations between Zina and Joseph—an 1869 affidavit by Zina. Reference to this evidence first appears in Four Zinas: A Story of Mothers and Daughters on the Mormon Frontier. The authors note the following:

Zina does not record if she and Joseph consummated their union, although Zina later signed an affidavit that she was Smith’s wife in “very deed.” ¹

The reference provided by the authors is “Joseph F. Smith, Affidavit Books, 4 vols., 1:5, 4:5, LDS Church Archives.”² With such a reference, it is easy enough to check the source. Doing so does reveal an affidavit by Zina relative to the reality of her marriage to Joseph Smith. The following is the full text of the affidavit at Volume 1, page 5 of the cited source:

Territory of Utah
County of Salt Lake

Be it remembered that on this first day of May A.D. eighteen sixty nine before me Elias Smith Probate Judge for said county personally appeared, Zina Diantha Huntington Young who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith, that on the twenty-seventh day of October A.D. 1841, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by Dimick B. Huntington, a High Priest in said Church, according to the laws of the same, regulating marriage; in the presence of Fanny Maria Huntington

[signed] Zina D.H. Young

Subscribed and Sworn to by
the said Zina D.H. Young, the
day and year first above written
[signed] E. Smith
Probate Judge³

An examination of the affidavit in Volume 4, page 5, shows that it is textually the same, although written in a different hand. They are the same affidavit. Both are signed by Zina and the judge. The only difference, besides minor punctuation, is that the second copy (4:5) refers to “Fanny Mariah Huntington” instead of “Fanny Maria Huntington.”

Minor transcription differences aside, the obvious problem with the affidavit is that it doesn’t say what the authors of Four Zinas say that it says; there is nothing about Zina being Joseph’s wife in “very deed.” While it could be that the authors simply cited the wrong affidavit, a search of the LDS Archives turned up no other affidavits from Zina.

A more likely explanation is that the authors of Four Zinas confused an affidavit by Melissa Lott Willes, another plural wife of Joseph’s, with Zina’s affidavit. According to author Todd Compton, Melissa did, in her affidavit, say that she was Joseph’s wife “in very deed.”⁴ It is interesting to note that in a review of Compton’s In Sacred Loneliness, one reviewer noted that one deficiency in the book was that it didn’t “quote Zina Huntington’s affidavit that she was Smith’s wife in ‘very deed.’”⁵ It would obviously seem out of place to quote an affidavit that doesn’t exist.⁶

The bottom line is that there is no evidence that Zina made a definitive statement concerning the consummation of her marriage to Joseph Smith. My experience with this evidence also illustrates the danger in relying upon second-hand information when coming to any conclusions.

Notes
¹ Martha Sonntag Bradley and Mary Brown Firmage Woodward, Four Zinas: A Story of Mothers and Daughters on the Mormon Frontier (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2000), 114-115.

² Ibid., 137, note 53.

³ Affidavit of Zina D.H. Young, Affidavits on Celestial Marriage, May 1, 1869, Vol. 1:5 and 4:5, LDS Church Archives (MS 3423).

⁴ Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 12. Compton provides as his source the following on page 637: Affidavit of Melissa Willes, August 3, 1893, quoted in Raymond Bailey, “Emma Hale, Wife of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” master’s thesis (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1952), 98-100. In looking up the source provided by Compton, it appears that the original Willes affidavit is no longer extant. The information typed in the thesis on the referenced pages is cited as “The above copy is from a letter received by the writer [Raymond Bailey] from Myrtle Willes Bailey, December 11, 1949. Myrtle Willes Bailey is a granddaughter of Malissa Willes.” It is unknown whether Raymond Bailey was related to Myrtle Willes Bailey. The affidavit is dated 1893 and is given largely in a question and answer format, where “Joseph Smith Jr.” (actually Joseph Smith III) is doing the questioning and Willes the response. The question posed was “Q. Was (sic) you a wife in very deed?” and the answer was “A. Yes.” Willes and Smith were married nine months before Smith’s death, and she provided the affidavit when she was sixty-nine years old.

⁵ Katherine Daynes, Pacific Historical Review 68 (August 1999), 467.

⁶ It is unknown upon what the reviewer was relying for such a statement. Compton’s book appeared in 1997, the review appeared in 1999, and Four Zinas appeared in 2000. It is possible that the reviewer was relying upon a pre-publication copy of the incorrect Four Zinas as a basis for the criticism.

For the sake of argument, let us temporarily grant the two main points that Bowman is striving to prove for early Christianity. Neither of these ideas would threaten the unique truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The restored principle of continuing, dialogic [1] revelation is more fundamental to us than a set priesthood organization and ritual forms. That can be seen in the earliest years of how the Restoration unfolded [2]. A Church that relies on continuing revelation won’t resemble earlier versions of itself in every particular [3]. Hypothetically, I can accept that ordination by the laying on of hands and having an authoritative, living spokesman for the Lord is necessary in our dispensation while suspending judgment on other eras. My faith in unique Mormon truth claims stem from the trust I have in witnesses to angelic ministrations restoring apostolic keys (with the implication that they were missing from apostate Christianity) and my acceptance of the revelations identifying the “only true and living Church” that God is well pleased with (DC 1:30) and that priesthood keys will never again be taken away (DC 13).

Where Bowman’s critique may matter is how Latter-day Saints appeal to the Bible to present our apostasy and restoration narrative to others. Like others that hold the Bible as scripture, we often appeal to proof texts that are filtered through the lens formed by our prior knowledge [4]. Bowman provides a valuable service by showing that those same proof-texts can be rationally read to produce a different conclusion when approached with a different lens. Collectively, the ancient sources are sparse and widely distributed over time. So understandably, Bowman’s interpretations sometimes contain arguments from silence. In general, such arguments are only persuasive in as much as there is a reasonable expectation that an item would be mentioned if it really happened or existed. Such arguments can lose their force when additional information is introduced or it can be demonstrated that the missing item would naturally be assumed anyway by its original audience.

Ordinations

Benjamin Merkle, a Baptist scholar, compiled list from the New Testament (Acts 6:6; 8:17, 19; 9:12, 17; 13:3; 19:6; 28:8; also see 1 Tim 5:22) depicting the laying on of hands which he writes “is often associated with the appointing of elders” or alternatively “is often associated with the appointing or commissioning of someone for a specific office or task.” I will grant that Merkle and Bowman have identified some cases where words used for appointing or ordaining did not entail the laying on of hands. The problem then becomes which set of cases is more applicable to the ordinations under dispute, like those of Matthias and Paul. Ultimately, I think these debates are irresolvable one way due to the insufficiency of the New Testament texts. My need for closure is probably less than those coming from a sola scriptura background. A non-canonical text from Brigham Young informs my approach:

I have known that Brother Marks “had no evidence but the written word;” But if this people have no evidence but the written word, it is quite time to go to the river and be [baptized] for the remission of their sins. Who cannot see that Elder Rigdon would sacrifice this people? Brother Marks says, if there are any ordained to offices equal with Elder Rigdon he [don't] know it. He [don't] know all the ordinations, nor he [won't until] he knows something more than the written word. [5]

The context of that remark is crucial for understanding LDS apostolic succession. Here Brigham claimed that no scripture up to that point (Bible and 1844 Doctrine and Covenants included) was sufficient to establish who the successor of priesthood keys held by Joseph Smith (and thus Peter) should be. While not written, Young and others had received verbal and experiential knowledge on how to resolve the succession crisis. Many of the lesser informed Saints after Joseph’s martyrdom witnessed a divine manifestation supporting Brigham Young’s succession claims.[6] I recognize that having non-written protocols for apostolic succession can create problems. Fundamentalist schismatic groups are the Mormon version of the ancient gnostics that claimed authority from apostles via secret tradition.[7]

Nevertheless, I am curious about filling in the gaps in the New Testament. One way to do so is to appeal to later Christian tradition. Ben Merkle explains that the word “ordain” as it is represented in Patristic Greek does denote the laying on of hands, but that it would be anachronistic to read that back into Biblical passages. While I haven’t explored what traditions say about Matthias and Paul’s appointment, I am aware of some traditions (Jerome, Pseudo-Clementines) that James was ordained to his apostleship. The case of James is much more intriguing, because in some interpretations his Acts 15 role appears to transcend that of Peter. At best Paul appears to be independent and equal to Peter. Around 200 AD (for example Irenaeus) it was considered important to create “Bishops Lists” or a chain of tangibly ordained bishops traced to the apostles to combat heresies. More deserves to be said about the usefulness of this information for reconstructing ordination during the NT times. I do wonder how effective a decentralized Protestant-like organization would have been combating heresy back then with even less canonical scripture that could be appealed to.

Traditions earlier than the New Testament can also help fill in some gaps as Christianity emerged from Judaism. Numbers 27:12-23 and Deuteronomy 34:9 discuss the ordination of Joshua. Keith Mattingly demonstrated that the laying on of hands aspect was the most important part of Yahweh’s instruction to Moses and that this provided for the congregation a visible sign of the word of God.[8] Both Patristic and Rabbinical texts appeal to these passages as a precedent for their ordinations. A rabbi’s student received permission to teach publicly and judge disputes by being ordained via the laying on of hands by his master. That was referred to as semikah (meaning laying on of hands). Near the end of a long analysis of Jewish sources, Hugo Mantel writes [9]:

The laying on of hands was a blessing that the student should prove successful in his teaching (in accordance with the verse, “And Joshua the son of Nun was full with the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him”). Since we know that from the time of R. Judah the Patriarch onwards it was not customary to lay on hands at the time of granting permission to a student, the origin of these Midrashim must be sought in the Temple period. We may also gather that in the Second Temple period it was customary to lay hands on students graduating as teachers in order to permit them to teach publicly, and to give decisions in ritual matters, ritual purity, and probably even to judge in financial cases not involving fines; for fines were under jurisdiction of the officially appointed judges. It was the granting of this permission which received the name semikah. A further proof, perhaps even clearer than the first, is certainly from the Temple period, and shows that semikah was practised then. In the Gospels we are told a number of times that the elders and leaders of the sect placed their hands on their students. The twelve disciples of Jesus laid their hands on seven young men who were to be the officials of the community (and, it would seem, the propagators of Christianity). Apparently these young men received by means of the semikah the right to teach Christianity in public, as, in fact, we find them doing, particularly Stephen. They taught publicly no less than the disciples themselves. Moreover, it is recorded that the prophets and the teachers of the sect in Antioch laid their hands on two of their group who went out as missionaries to spread their teachings in other cities.

Nevertheless, I do not detect a scholarly consensus that Christian ordination derived from semikah. For example, Everett Ferguson utilizes a distinction between semikah (a hard touch) and sim (a gentle touch accompanying a blessing) even though they are interchangeable in the LXX. [10]

In the Syriac version of the New Testament (unfortunately the Peshitta is our earliest text for the Acts and the Epistles) the equivalent of the Hebrew sim is uniformly used for the laying on of hands. Samakh, in contrast, occurs in the Syriac Bible chiefly for reclining at a table. All of the Syriac texts from the early history of the church use sim for the laying on of hands, and in Neo-Syriac the technical words associated with ordination are developed from this root.

Even if this line of inquiry sharply differentiates Jewish and Christian ordination, it likewise has later texts conflating ordination and the laying on of hands. Ferguson describes Christian ordinations as more immediately relying on Christ’s example of the imposition of hands in performing acts of healing.

The early Christians used the act as a symbol of a blessing. All of the circumstances in which the laying on of hands seemed appropriate in the church permit the rite to be interpreted as bestowing a blessing of one kind or another-the Holy Spirit, the fellowship of Christians, forgiveness or reconciliation. . . . This circumstance is in harmony with the earliest theological interpretations of ordination, which place the emphasis on the prayer and indeed call it a benediction. The imposition of hands was the outward symbol of the prayer -a personal benediction on the candidate and a petition for divine blessing upon him. This understanding of the hands breaks any necessary connection between the gesture and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.

What I gather from these articles (and others [11]) on ordination is that it is reasonable for a first century New Testament reader to assume that when a Church officer was appointed, that officer had received the laying on of hands; whether it was explicitly mentioned in the text or not. That is not to say that things that were typically done by the laying on of hands like bestowing the Holy Ghost, healing, or ordaining were never done in another manner. In fact LDS authorities and scholars have commented on such anomalous texts (John 20:22, 3 Nephi 9:20) in regards to rare, but different ways the Holy Ghost has been bestowed. We have never really been forced to accept that such an anomaly has ever occurred in regards to priesthood ordination. Dan Peterson has responded to two separate attempts by Mormon apostates to do just that with the Book of Mormon[12] and the Priesthood Restoration[13]. Bowman’s insistence that silence in a text about the laying on of hands or an equivalent initiation ritual means is not all that new or compelling. Still, I am grateful for him taking the time to explain why LDS interpretations of certain biblical passages is likewise not compelling when approached from a different paradigm.

[1] Terryl Givens writes in The Book of Mormon and Dialogic Revelations:

Similarly, scholar of early Christianity W. D. Davies wonders if Mormonism’s error is in taking “conventional modes of revelation found in the OT . . . so literally . . . as to give a facticity to what was intended as symbolic.” …

But of course, this tenacious embrace of revelatory literalism is neither an arbitrary biblical fundamentalism nor a Book of Mormon innovation. It is in fact rooted in Joseph Smith’s own, firsthand experience with revelation, a dialogic encounter with Deity that gave indelible redefinition to the promise of James the Apostle by simply taking it at face value, thereby setting both Joseph and the church he would found on a collision course with orthodoxy. ….

For millions of believers, the Book of Mormon has been the vehicle through which they could find their own sacred grove and reenact on a personal scale the epiphany that ushered in a new dispensation.

[2] See for instance Prince’s Power from on High, Tvedtnes’ Organize My Kingdom, Welch’s Opening the Heavens as solid works containing primary source material on LDS priesthood development; another useful source is an article in Early Christians in Disarray entitled “A World in Darkness”: Early Latter-day Saint Understanding of the Apostasy, 1830-1834. As a corrective to Parley Pratt’s reminiscence they intriguingly write:

If the very earliest missionaries taught the loss of authority, it seems not to have been an area of particular emphasis or even the distinguishing characteristic. More often they taught the evil effects of the apostasy, the immediate need to come out of the world, and to gather to Zion. Early Mormonism was not presented as merely a denomination per se in contrast with all other churches, but as the restoration of all things, the very dispensation of the fullness of times, modern Israel preparing for the millennial day.

[3] Kevin Barney writes in A Tale of Two Restorations:

If one is to restore the early Christian church, there are two basic ways to go about the task. One would be to restore it the way Nauvoo Restoration restored Heber C. Kimball’s home: to attempt to recreate it as it was and preserve it in precisely that setting. This is a sort of museum approach to restoration, and this was the path followed by Alexander. The alternative approach would be to restore not only the forms of New Testament worship, but also the means, which entail revelation between God and man. This of course is the path followed by Joseph. If one restores the means as well as the forms, however, a paradox arises, for revelation by its very nature can take the church in new directions responsive to changing conditions. It may be that a church patterned after a first century Hellenistic ekklesia is not what is needed by the Saints in, say, twenty-first century Russia. Some in the early Church of this dispensation were not prepared for this possibility.

[4] Blair Hodges’ Liken with Care is worth the read:

[There is an assumption] that all that is taught in the LDS Church now, or is being revealed through the continuing restoration of the gospel must be contingent upon or equal to something in “Original Christianity.” … “Original Christianity” is a very precarious term, however, and remains imperfectly defined. These assumptions can result in proof-texting the Bible and various other early Christian writings to find evidence of truth; if it matches the old texts, it must be true, Joseph Smith got it right. Such an approach can easily miss what the original writers intended. This is a practice of which both LDS and non-LDS are guilty. ….

When the sixth article of faith says “We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth,” it does not mean that the Church on earth in Christ’s day exactly paralleled the current organization complete with Young Men/Young Women advisers.

[5] See Ronald K. Esplin, “Joseph, Brigham, and the Twelve: A succession of continuity” in BYU Studies 21:3 (1971) p. 301-41 (esp. 305). See also Times and Seasons Oct. 1, 1844

[6] See Opening the Heavens

[7] Compare this rebuttal by Bryan C. Hales of fundamentalist claims to Irenaeus’ against gnostics Against Haeresies

[8] Keith Mattingly, “The Significance of Joshua’s Reception of the Laying on of Hands in Numbers 27:12-23″ in Andrews University Seminary Studies 39.2 (Autumn 2001) 191-208.

[9] Hugo Mantel, “Ordination and Appointment in the Period of the Temple” in The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 57, No. 4 (Oct., 1964), pp. 325-346

[10] Everett Ferguson, “Jewish and Christian Ordination: Some Observations”  in The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 56, No. 1 (Jan., 1963), pp. 13-19

[11] A good summary of several articles can be found with Robert Lee Williams, Bishops Lists p. 54, 58-60, Gorgias Press (2005)

[12] See Daniel C. Peterson, “Authority in the Book of Mosiah” in FARMS Review 18/1 (2006)

[13] See Daniel C. Peterson, “Editor’s Introduction: Of ‘Galileo Events,’ Hype, and Suppression: Or, Abusing Science and its History” in FARMS Review: 15/2 (2003)

1826 South Bainbridge, Chenango, NY Joseph is accused of being a disorderly person or vagrant pretending “to discover where lost goods may be found” while in the employ of Josiah Stowell. I will discuss the outcome of this hearing below.

March 1829 Lyons, Wayne, NY While Joseph lived in Harmony, Lucy Harris brought a suit against him for defrauding her husband by faking the plates. The magistrate “tore [a record of Lucy's witnesses] in pieces before their eyes, and told them to go home about their business, and trouble him no more with such ridiculous folly.”

May 1829 Broome, NY or Susquehanna, PA Joseph Smith arrested for “being a false prophet and deceiving the people.” The prosecuting attorney asks for the case to be dismissed after Joseph successfully answers religious questions.

June 1830 South Bainbridge, Chenango, NY Joseph is again accused under the disorderly person act and of being a false prophet. Joseph’s character and conduct was examined in order to “open the eyes and understandings of those who blindly followed him.” Joseph was acquitted, but was tried again in Broome county the next day.

July 1830 Broome, NY A trial with similar charges and witnesses was held before three J/Ps. Joseph found not guilty.

The 1826 hearing outcome

The best historical reconstruction is that Joseph Smith was brought before a justice of the peace for an “examination” or pre-trial hearing. This is conceded by Dan Vogel and Wesley Walters, easily the top scholarly critics  who have written on the subject. One can not be found criminally guilty at a pre-trial hearing. There are mixed reports about the outcome of the hearing as this link shows:

1. Benton [anti-mormon, 1st hand]: tried and condemned … designedly allowed to escape
2. Cowdery [mormon, 2nd hand]: honorably acquitted
3. Noble [anti-mormon, late]: was condemned, took leg bail
4. Marshall  [anti-mormon, some editing]: guilty?
5. Tuttle [anti-mormon, some editing]: guilty?
6. Purple [non-mormon, late]: discharged
7. Constable De Zeng [non-mormon]: not a trial
8. Neely’s bill [I am adding this one to the wiki list, non-mormon]: fees [not a fine!] consistent with an examination not a trial

Only 4-5 claim he was guilty and those two really have the same source. The story goes that a page was tore out of docket book and published with some editorial discrepancies. So it has long been suspected that the part about being “guilty” was fraudulently added. Vogel argued that “guilty” just meant that the justice of the peace found enough evidence to hold Joseph over for trial. He found an Ohio legal code that uses “guilty” in that sense.

Two of the anti-mormon accounts indicate that Joseph was “condemned” (1 and 3). That does not mean Joseph was found criminally guilty of a misdemeanor. Rather it appears to mean something like Joseph was scolded. In the 1830 Broome County trial Noble was one of the 3 justices of the peace. He was said to have “condemned” Joseph, despite the J/Ps deciding Joseph was not guilty. John Reed, one of Joseph’s attorneys, felt the reprimand was “unlawful and uncalled for” and done solely “to please his accusers.” I think a similar ploy happened in the 1826 hearing, where the case against Joseph had as little merit then as it did in 1830.

Benton said that Joseph in 1826 was allowed to escape and Noble said he took leg bail. One of the ways to avoid prosecution in those days was to flee the territory. People that wanted to defend their reputation might have incentive to stick around and face trial. It is clear that Joseph was let go and a rumor (propagated by Noble) claimed Joseph was afraid to stand trial and hence left the area. But it is clear that Joseph was not too shy about returning to the area.  For example he married Emma in January 1827 through a J/P there! The other indication that Joseph was let go and not fleeing the law comes from the constable’s bill (see this FARMS Review article):

And what was the outcome of the hearing? Your friend relies upon the so-called court record, as well as the equally suspect account of Judge King Noble, in claiming that Joseph was bound over for trial. Noble, although a judge, did not hear the case, and is not a primary source. Without anything more substantial to go on than his own and Walters’s wishful thinking, your friend confidently declares that the hearing “would have resulted in a later full trial had Joseph Smith not taken what Joel K. Noble called ‘leg bail’ (i.e., he fled the area)” (p. 124). In reality, the evidence points toward Joseph’s having been acquitted.

The court record your friend relies on so heavily actually does include some valid details, although badly garbled. I mentioned Justice Neely’s costs of $2.68. There is also an amount of $.19 listed as “warrants.” Another document that Walters ran down was a bill presented by Constable De Zeng for that amount. Now it happens that $.19 was the prescribed amount for a pretrial mittimus (warrant of commitment to prison for lack of bail), as set down in A Conductor Generalis of 1819. In other words, it was the amount the constable would charge for bringing an accused person in. If Justice Neely had found that there was a case for Joseph to answer, he would have ordered him bound over for trial at the next court of General Sessions, and De Zeng would have charged an additional $.25, which was the prescribed amount for a posttrial warrant of commitment. But that charge was not levied; therefore, Joseph was not remanded to the custody of the constable, and so he was, in all probability, acquitted. That is precisely what Oliver Cowdery reported in Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate 2 (October 1835): 202

I will dispute the idea attributed to Walters above,  because I  think the 1826 pre-trial hearing did in fact result in a full trial in 1830. In 1830, Joseph was captured in a neighboring county and dragged to Bainbridge, presumably because that is where the original complaint had been filed in 1826. The trial failed in part because of the statute of limitations (4 years had lapsed the 3 year limit). So Joseph’s persecutors changed the venue back to the county he was captured at and brought up the same charges. Again they failed to convict Joseph despite trying to throw the kitchen sink at him. So if one sees the 1830 trials as a continuation of the 1826 hearing then the conclusion to the whole episode was that Joseph formally found “not guilty” twice in 1830 in addition to being informally “honorably acquitted” and “discharged” in 1826.

Hence our modern day critics would be well-advised to stop claiming that Joseph Smith was a convicted con-artist. Their 19th century counterparts in New York had  5 years to build their case and utterly failed to do so, despite being given 5 opportunities.

See my blog posts The Bainbridge Conspiracy for more details on how these early trials were manifestations of religious persecution and Seer or Pious Fraud? for a discussion of Joseph Smith’s gift of seeing.

Brigham Young’s Indian Policy

The Massacre at Mountain Meadows very clearly portrays the massacre as a locally planned and executed affair. While Brigham Young was not responsible for providing a proximal cause, I think it is fair to analyze how some of his actions and policies may have had unintended and indirect consequences for setting the stage. Perhaps the most unfortunate thing Brigham did was to threaten to shirk in his role as a peacemaker between obnoxious wagon trains and the Native Americans who suffered from such contact.

The emigrants would trespass through Indian lands, deplete resources such as grazing and game, shoot at Indians just for target practice, and enter into skirmishes over stolen property. Mormon mediators, under Brigham Young’s direction as Superintendant of Indian Affairs, would placate the Indians on the behalf of the emigrants by offering them Mormon goods (a manifestation of the feed ‘em, don’t fight ‘em mentality). Ungrateful wagon train members, though happy to make it through Utah alive, would not reimburse Young and the Mormons for their substantial services. Neither did the federal government [1].

A turning point came in mid-August when the mediation policy backfired and emigrants incited Indians along the northern route to nearly turn on the Mormons. Brigham then made public threats that the coming war would prevent the Mormons from mediating and it was likely that the Indians—left to themselves—would fatally plunder from wagon trains. The authors suggest that the news would have arrived by word of mouth to southern Utah just as the Baker/Fancher train was passing through.[2] The letter Haslam carried appears to confirm this new laissez faire stance in regards to letting the Indians do as they please [3]. However, I do not think that Brigham expected his threat to be carried out so soon.[4] Firstly, he did not distribute an official letter to all the various local territorial leaders, like he did with his war policies (such as cultivating an alliance with the Indians, stockpiling grain and ammunition, or refusing the sell of such to emigrants) [5]. Secondly the book gives an example where the Mormons continued to act as pacifying mediators involving the train immediately following the Baker/Fancher train along the southern route [6].

If this reconstruction is correct, Haight and Lee initially made the decision to go beyond the official tactic of allying with Indians against military attacks and even beyond a non-interventionist stance. They sought to instigate, assist, and lead the Indians to carry out an attack on innocent bystanders [7]. Haight put the wheels in motion for the massacre against the wishes of his superior officer, William Dame [8].

The authors’ tight chronology convincingly demonstrates that Brigham Young’s largely unsuccessful negotiations with Indian tribal leaders to form an alliance was irrelevant to the tragic events in southern Utah [9]. Even if one reads the Huntington diaries as promoting the theft of grain and cattle from non-military convoys as the authors do, it was Brigham’s style to give “fair warning” [10]. Young later denounced the massacre in the strongest possible terms [11].

Notes

[1] Most of the information in this paragraph can be found on p. 84-5 and 94-100. For federal governmental concern over a possible Mormon-Indian alliance leading up to Buchanan’s Blunder see Thomas G. Alexander, “Carpetbaggers, Reprobates, and Liars: Federal Judges and the Utah War (1857-58).” The Historian 70 (Summer 2008): 209-38 reviewed here.
[2] see especially p. 137 and 175
[3] Brigham Young’s response to the misinformation fed him by Isaac Haight is covered on p. 181-6
[4] It should be noted that the book does not make this argument.
[5] On Brigham Young’s written orders in early August see M@MM 47-50. George A. Smith was selected to carry the message through on a tour through southern Utah.
[6] See M@MM 175-7. The incident will be further covered in another installment of this review.
[7] Haight and Lee’s initial planning session is covered on 141-145. Earlier the authors non-commitally write “Haight’s interpretation of the [new Indian] policy may have influenced his next decision.” (p. 137 emphasis mine)
[8] M@MM 132-6 Haight wanted Dames’ permission to use the Nauvoo Legion to punish some members of Fancher/Baker train for making death threats. Dame declined reportedly writing “words are but wind.”
[9] M@MM 145-7. The authors take a rare detour to dispute a prior study implicating Brigham Young by linking these discussions to the massacre. Other contrary reactions to this theory can be found here, here, here, and here.
[10] M@MM 100
[11] The occasion I have in mind is found here.

There are transactions that are too horrible for me to contemplate.

The massacre at Haun’s mill, and that of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and the Mountain Meadow’s massacre and the murder of Dr. Robinson are of this character. I cannot think that there are beings upon the earth who have any claim to the sentiments and feelings which dwell in the breasts of civilized men who could be guilty of such atrocities; and it is hard to suppose that even savages would be capable of performing such inhuman acts.

See MMM 135 for evidence that Brigham would not have accepted a justification based on avenging the “Blood of the prophets.” However Brigham’s reaction to the massacre varied at times based on what information and misinformation he received as outlined in Alexander’s Arrington lecture which I highlighted here.

Thomas G. Alexander. “Carpetbaggers, Reprobates, and Liars: Federal Judges and the Utah War (1857-58).” The Historian 70 (Summer 2008): 209-38.

In this article published in The Historian, Thomas G. Alexander focuses on federal officials in Utah during the 1850s. He theorizes that the false reports of federal judges and agents convinced President James Buchanan to send U. S. troops to Utah Territory. Offering his 1857 State of the Union message as proof, he notes that Buchanan’s arguments reverberate the reports of Utah Territory’s carpetbag officers. His treatment features the cultural and political problem in Utah Territory and the relationship of misinformation to presidential military decisions thoughout American history.

The author’s meager use of contemporary Latter-day Saints’ sources in documenting the charges and the defenses against them allows the reader to concentrate on the federal government and not the populace of Utah. He outlines the separate charges of the federal officers, which included Brigham Young’s absolute control over the populace, Utahns’ opposition to the American government and military, church ordered seizure of property and murder of dissenters and non-members, and the church’s effort to persuade Indians to kill non-members. Recent scholarship and contemporary legal documents and other reports refute the validity of these accusations. Alexander determines that the dispatch of troops to Utah represents “political hypocrisy and cultural myopia” of the Democratic Party, a party which pledged a year earlier to support the principle of religious freedom.

Concentrating on judges, the author highlights their personalities, qualification, and relations with Latter-day Saints. The first set of three judges, who arrived in 1851, impaired Utah Territory’s legal system by leaving after six weeks. The flight stemmed from when Judge Brocchus addressed the Latter-day Saint in a conference and demonstrated his misunderstanding of the Latter-day Saints oppression in Missouri and Illinois. Alexander claims that Brigham Young, knowing that the audience was offended, addressed the same conference by saying, “Judge Brocchus was either profoundly ignorant or willfully wicked.” The incident created mistrust and fear, spurring judges Brocchus and Brandebury to flee. Alexander postulates that the effects of the flight of and later criticism from Brocchus and Brandebury had on Buchanan are unclear, but public opinion in American remained anti-Mormon. The remaining judge Zerubbabel Snow was responsible for Utah’s court system. To ease Snow’s burden, the territory legislature extended the powers of probate courts to hear civil and criminal cases.

The author characterizes the federal government as having jealously guarded their power and fought against any steps taken by the territory citizens, legislature, and courts that could not be solved by Washington or the few residential federal officials. Many federal judges considered Utah Territory’s probate courts illegal, although other territories used similar arrangements. The successor of Judge Brocchus, Judge Kinney, disagreed with the enlarged legal jurisdiction of probates, allowing Judge Drummond to not stand trial for using his slave to attack a Jew. Kinney also ignored the territorial law that required juries to come from the same counties as the accused. The author highlights the friction between Utahns and judges by citing the failure of Judges Kinney and Drummond in dictating the defense attorney’s tactics and sentencing Pahvant Indians in murders of the Gunnison party.

The federal judges’ hostile rulings, comments, and attitudes against the Latter-day Saints flood the author’s narrative. Judge Drummond receives the most attention because his apparent moral depravity and influence on Buchanan. Curiously, the author attempts to connect Buchanan’s Blunder to other misinformed United States presidents who made poor military decisions that have produced the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, the invasion of Russia in 1919, Vietnam, and the second invasion of Iraq.

The brisk pace of the prose allows the authors (Walker, Turley, and Leonard) to confidently present their historical reconstruction. That is because they spend little time arguing against alternative reconstructions or explaining a rationale for privileging one source or another. Many sources and concepts are presented with minimal commentary and readers are made to work at making conclusions and making connections. I am going to attempt to do just that in this review on some of the items that caught my interest.

John D. Lee

The authors wanted to avoid two polarized approaches employed in past treatments. “One approach portrays the perpetrators as good people and the victims as evil ones who committed outrages during their travel through central and southern Utah. … The second approach looks at the innocence of the emigrants and the evil of the killers, who at best are described as followers of a misguided religion.” (p. xii-xiii) I think the authors, in general, succeed in their attempt to follow a moderating course. However, the gloves clearly come off when discussing John D. Lee.

Abused and suicidal as a child, Lee grew up to be abusive and power hungry as an adult. On the positive side he was recognized as an energetic, hard worker by Brigham Young. A wife, Nancy Bean describes a propensity of Lee’s to cover up his bad behavior from Young and the Twelve and not answer to anyone else (p. 61). Lee is portrayed as a zealot, something he himself was able to recognize in hindsight (p.62). When Lee was the presiding elder in Harmony, he strove for control over Indian affairs with the nearby Indian mission. One of the missionaries confided in his diary that Lee experienced transparently self-serving “dreams, visions, and revelations” (p.65). Perhaps most disturbing was Lee’s tyrannical behavior as a military officer in the Walker War. He as “determined to carry out orders . . . if need be by the shedding of Blood” (p. 63) of those he regarded as apostates. Although no deaths resulted, 31 adults deserted the Church for California and many were courts-martialed for minor offenses.

Vengeance

I think is important writing about a controversial subject to establish trust with the intended audience. Massacre at Mountain Meadows is destined to become the definitive work for many non-specialists, average Church members who read the article in the Ensign or the inadequate treatment in CES manuals and who desire more depth. The first chapter goes along way toward establishing credibility as it recounts early Mormon history in familiar terms, but still challenging readers not ignore the Saints’ wishes for God’s justice upon their persecutors. And yes, Ron Priddis, the Saints were persecuted for their religious beliefs and practices. I feel other treatments of the massacre have alienated their potential readership by focusing on shadowy elements of Mormon ritual reported with a hostile spin by dissenters.

The so-called oath of vengeance is something I relatively know more about than the other many subjects in the book. So in following Davis Bitton’s advice for reviewing books, I find that the authors do not offer pro-Mormon syrupy drivel that avoid tough facts and sets members up for a fall when they encounter them in a hostile forum. They also avoid the other anti-Mormon extreme, which gives uncontested voice to zealots and dissidents to distort Mormon history. I have been a contributor for the article in the FAIR wiki on alleged oaths of vengeance in the temple, which has been a work in progress as I have encountered more data points that help patch together the cultural milieu on vengeance. What I am discovering is that one does not have to invade sacred space to recover what the Saints thought about the subject as it is rather transparent in the scriptures and in the Saints’ public reaction to such events as the Martyrdom. So I appreciate the authors’ minimalistic handling of temple practices, for example the prayer circle at the Mountain Meadows is labeled an act of sacrilege (p. 189) and the narrative moves on. I am pleased in the overlap in texts and events we both selected to give context to a subject that can be very disturbing for members. I have known that the section on the Utah period is inadequate and this book will undoubtedly provide material for an update.

Particularly noteworthy is how the authors frame Mormon/Gentile conflict in us vs. them, majority vs. minority terms. The Mormons often took the brunt of the heavy-handed methods that the majority took to preemptively keep the Mormons from getting political control. But it is sobering that when the situation was reversed on a smaller scale, Mormons likewise abused their power. In one of the darkest moments in Mormon history prior to the massacre, Missouri dissenters (such as David Whitmer) were deprived of their property and forcefully cast out like salt that lost its savor.

The Saints’ hopes and dreams for vengeance to befall their persecutors took three different forms. The most mature form hoped that God would enact justice without any assistance. The most problematic form, seen in southern Utah contemporaneously with the approach of Harney’s (later Johnson’s) Army envisioned the Saints themselves would be called upon to instruments of God’s wrath. We see this in a Pioneer Day parade where a cadre of youth march as “Zion’s Avengers” in Cedar City (p. 131) and in a women’s society meeting where praying for the massacre perpetrators (under the misguided notion they were acting in self-defense) and teaching children to desire vengeance for the “blood of the Prophets” (p. 135 and p. 181) was chillingly taught. The authors show that some of the Mormon settlers could make the irrational leap to transfer guilt onto goups that were not directly responsible for past persecution.

A third form taken was that the Indians were to rise up and be instruments of vengeance. I stumbled upon the earliest manifestation of this idea that I have a few weeks ago while reading Joseph Lee Robinson’s reminiscent account of a Nauvoo 9th Ward meeting following the lynching of Joseph and Hyrum. Ezra T. Benson was present, but I have no proof that John D. Lee was, except that he is identified as a 9th Ward member earlier in Robinson’s journal. Robinson is asked to interpret a lengthy discourse in tongues. He predicts that those who murdered the Smith brothers would go unpunished by the law, but the Lamanites would convert to the Gospel and form a mighty army to avenge the blood of the prophets (p. 47-48). The Massacre of Mountain Meadows does not bring this source up, but for practical reasons, the Mormons wanted the Indians to be their allies during the upcoming war. Which leads me to the next topic I would like to discuss, that of Brigham Young’s Indian policies.

What we have in Mormon historiography is two Josephs: the one who started out digging for money and when he was unsuccessful, turned to propheteering, and the one who had visions and dreamed dreams, restored the church, and revealed the will of the Lord to a sinful world.

While Vogel argues that the pious fraud model can give us special insight into the mind of the prophet, the model is deficient in providing much explanation on other subjects. Richard Bushman pointed this out about Brodie’s (and by extension, I think, Vogel’s) biography in comparison to his own Rough Stone Rolling:

Many will prefer Fawn McKay Brodie’s account in No Man Knows My History. She portrayed Joseph Smith as a pious fraud who became a prophet despite perpetrating a hoax with the Book of Mormon. That does not work for me. In Brodie’s narrative. Mormon believers inevitably become simpleminded dupes. If Smith was a charlatan, everyone who followed him was deluded—including myself and all my Mormon friends. Making Joseph Smith an impostor may accord with our modern view of what is possible and impossible—no gold plates or angels, please—but it does not explain why he succeeded. Why did people then and now believe him? To understand their belief you have to get inside his world, in my opinion,and think of him as his followers did.

Pious fraud theory does a very poor job at handling the existence of the plates. However where students of Mormon history might be persuaded is in Joseph’s pre-translation activities as a village seer. Here Vogel’s thorough-going naturalism has the potential to more plausibly (in an Occam’s razor sense) explain the data in the early accounts. To paraphrase, Vogel asks us what is more plausible: believing in bleeding ghosts, slippery treasure, and seeing things underground that comes with the territory of treasure seeking folklore or simply believing that Joseph Smith deceived people into thinking he had spiritual gifts? As least one regular bloggernacle contributor (a very bright individual I might add) has embraced the latter:

Nor do I believe that God gave Joseph (and only Joseph out of the many, many treasure seers of early 19th-century New England) the power to actually see underground in his seer stones. So I’m left with some idea of Joseph the treasure seer as a fraud and a kind of backwoods con man.

The remarkable forthrightness is commendable, when so many historians merely report the substance of the treasure digging accounts and leave it up to their readers to judge their authenticity. In terms of apologetics, I think it is wise to be agnostic to things that are not part of our common experience like bleeding ghosts and slippery treasure, but I also think we need to go further and try to explain the consequences of choosing one position over another. To play Devil’s Advocate: If Joseph Smith misrepresented what he could see with his seer stone, I see no reason to tar his entire body of work. He was young and could have repented. If the data about his days as a treasure seeker are ambiguous, his religious works are not! Just about every high point in religious innovation came accompanied with profound spiritual experiences witnessed by multiple people.

It is difficult for me to advocate the pious fraud theory in such a manner. It seems to say more about a proponent author’s judgment on whether (and why) Joesph Smith lied on case by case basis (D&C 19, Zelph, polygamy denials, etc.) than it does about Joseph Smith. After polygamy and racial issues, the 3rd most common query to FAIR involves people disoriented by learning about seer stones. I think it is much more helpful to steer these individuals towards the literature that supports a prophet-in-training model as described by Mark Ashurst-McGee and to a lesser extent, Richard Bushman. As long as one doesn’t take the position that any explanation is better than the provided supernatural one, than I think this model holds up fairly well.

I actually think Joseph Smith was able to see treasure underground. He was able see the Book of Mormon in his seer stone before uncovering it. He had a reputation for being able to locate well water. He was able to read from the page of book with his back turned. He beat Martin Harris in a foot race through the woods with a blindfold on and relying only on his seer stone. He located a pin Martin dropped in a pile of straw. He described what inns David Whitmer had stopped at on his 3 day journey from Fayette to Harmony. He described the homestead of Josiah Stowell from a similar distance. He located some animals that had been lost for 3 days for a neighbor and a mare for another neighbor. Stowell found a buried money at “Bend Mountain” as Joseph represented it. Joseph kept tabs on whether the plates were safe through his divining aid. Dale Broadhurst pointed out to me an account where Joseph Smith sucessfully pointed out at which point a Judge Clark had dropped a wallet in a stream on a cross country trip. Many of these references are quoted in a message board thread I participated a few years ago on. I am aware that I am cherry picking the success accounts and not engaging in responsible source criticism.

Just to move forward, let’s take these anecdotes at face value. The question becomes how did Joseph see all of these objects obscured by distance or dirt? One model that I lack the expertise to thoroughly evaluate and hence leave for others is whether Joseph was crazy or mentally ill. The crazy model does an unsatisfactory poor job of explaining things observed by a group even when the power of suggestion, hypnotization, and propensity to hallucinate are considered.

Another model I won’t consider at length is the one used in the counter-cultists that concede that supernatural power was involved, but that it was all witchcraft and magic of the sort that the Bible strongly condemns. I think the Mormon apologetic response has been adequate in this area. Joseph Smith and many before and after him that had the gift of seeing thoroughly situated in the supernatural narratives of the Biblical good guys like Moses, Aaron, Samuel, Jesus, and the Apostles. In the Bible the presence of true wonder working prophets frequently drew competitors who duplicated miracles but drew power from false gods and evil spirits. If this paradigm has any understanding to offer, it might help explain some of Joseph’s failures as a treasure seer. Mischievous spirits could have been messing with Joseph Smith. It is not trivial that historical sources about Joseph incrementally have him learning how to discern evil spirits and the source of revelation whether it be of man, God, or the devil.

Moroni 7 is one such text that has been put into the service of the pious fraud model. Verse 16 reads in part

I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God

Looking through the lens of pious fraud. this passage might seem to suggest “the end justifies the means.” Restated, it is appropriate to lie if it brings someone closer to Christ. Such a reading, though, can at best be an ad hoc justification for something that has already occurred and produced observable pious results. It can’t be used in concocting a scheme, because the potential for disillusioned faith is immense if exposed. Whether the pious fraud is exposed or not, the impact, in general, is such that it strains the relationship the deceiver has with God. In sum, Mormon’s keys to discernment provide an interpretive framework when intent is not directly knowable. Mormonism has never embraced a strictly utilitarian philosophy if I read my Blake Ostler volumes right.

Vogel concluded an article locating numerous treasure digs by emphasizing Joseph’s failure as a treasure seer in contrast to his later success as a prophet. In some of these accounts of failure Joseph is described as reluctantly participating while being pressured to do so. Mormon apologists can comfortably admit that there were failures but some critics can’t admit to a single success despite overwhelming evidence. Vogel’s favorite story that illustrates that Joseph Smith was a pious fraud involves a friendly witness that described uncovering a feather but the treasure beneath it slipped away. Vogel considers it more plausible that Joseph planted the feather, but we have no evidence either way.

Vogel considers the failure accounts fit well within the general pattern of a charlatan in contrast to other historians have fit Joseph in the backdrop of other religiously-striving visionaries. What is interesting to me is despite having a law in the books against vagrant, defrauding seers and having over four years to build their case; Joseph’s opponents were unable to get a conviction. It seems odd that Joseph would form a profit-sharing company if he didn’t expect to find anything and he stuck around with his employer long after the initial dig was deemed a failure. If Joseph was a deceiving magician he was exceedingly bold to continue to do business in the same locale he was exposed. Perhaps Joseph didn’t read the How to be a Huckster guide very well.

I am open to suggestions how to better frame the issues or represent the arguments for or against the pious fraud model  of understanding Joseph Smith and what the challenges of advocating the seer-in-training-model are.

[Mitt Romney's] faith was founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith Jr., an itinerant treasure-seeker from upstate New York who used a set of magic glasses to translate a lost scripture from God. His personality was infectious, the religion very approachable.

It would have been just another Christian faith had not Smith let his libido lead him into trouble. Before he died at the hands of a mob, he married at least 33 women and girls; the youngest was 14, and was told she had to become Smith’s bedmate or risk eternal damnation.

Smith was fortunate to find a religious cover for his desire. His polygamy “revelation” was put into The Doctrine and Covenants, one of three sacred texts of Mormonism. It’s still there – the word of God. And that’s why, to the people in the compound at Eldorado, [Texas,] the real heretics are in Salt Lake City.

As his biographer, Fawn Brodie, wrote, Joseph Smith “could not rest until he had redefined the nature of sin and erected a stupendous theological edifice to support his new theories on marriage.”

It is hard for me to imagine more factual errors and loaded language that could be squeezed into four short paragraphs.

It’s clear that Mr. Egan has done little research to prepare himself to opine on Latter-day Saint history. His two sources of information, by his own admission, are Fawn Brodie’s 1945 psychobiography of Joseph Smith and Jon Krakauer’s 2003 examination of the religious murders committed by the Lafferty brothers. As one observant commenter noted:

Having read Brodie and Krakauer [Mr. Egan] believes he knows what there is to know about Mormonism. If he had cited Mark Twain’s line about the Book of Mormon being “chloroform in print,” the piece would have then qualified as carbon copy to 10 or 12 others that have run during the last year.

Nothing seems to indicate that Mr. Egan is aware of scholarship that questions Brodie and Krakauer’s methodology and conclusions (for example, here and here). It’s also quite clear that Egan isn’t aware of the differences between the 19th-century LDS practice of polygamy and the 21st-century FLDS practice of polygamy. (To say nothing of the differences between the FLDS practice today and just 50 years ago.)

Mr. Egan’s use of Fawn Brodie to understand Joseph Smith speaks volumes. Ms. Brodie’s book, despite its enduring popularity, is seriously dated. An enormous amount of research into Joseph Smith’s life has been done in the last 62 years, and her book has long been superseded, especially by the recent biography by Richard Bushman.

But what I believe attracts Mr. Egan to Brodie is not so much her research, but her conclusions. Brodie, the thoroughgoing naturalist, simply dismissed any statements made by contemporary believers, chalking them up to delusions or Joseph Smith’s powers of hypnotism. Having eliminated faithful witnesses, she was able to substitute her own theory for the existence of Mormonism — lust, greed, and accidental chance. It is no wonder that Brodie remains so popular among sectarian and secular critics of Mormonism, for it provides the only possible explanation for the miracle of Joseph Smith, no matter how ham-handed. (I’m still trying to understand Mosiah 3, Alma 36, and D&C 88 as the products of mind solely fixated on bedding young girls.)

Unfortunately many otherwise intelligent readers will be exposed to Joseph Smith only through the eyes of Timothy Egan, and that is a tragedy.

“Because of their Masonic characters the ceremonies of the temple  are sacred and not for the public.”

October 15, 1911; Messages of  First Presidency, 4: 250.

We can find more about the Stowell family than has been previously published [7-10] with the aid of local histories and genealogical resources, especially familysearch.org. Asa (1766-1826) and Josiah were third cousins, but intermarriages in this extended family strengthened ties. For example, two of Josiah’s brothers, the aforementioned Calvin (1774-1838) and Elisha (1767-1842), married a couple of Asa’s sisters. The above Elijah appears to be Asa’s brother and Isaiah may just be an alternative to Josiah. Asa’s father, Hezekiah, in 1786 became one of the first settlers in the part of Bainbridge that came to be known as Afton [11]. Hezekiah and Josiah were referred to as Vermont Sufferers, who got caught in the crossfire in a territory dispute between Vermont and New York, for which they were punished by the winning side and recompensed by New York. Hezekiah was found “to be [a sufferer] in opposing the government of the pretended state of Vermont” and was awarded a 840 acres [12].

After a month of unsuccessful excavation, Joseph persuaded Josiah to quit digging [13], at least at that particular location [14]. By March of the following year, the Bainbridge conspirators attempted to coerce Josiah to end his association with Joseph. A lawsuit was brought against Joseph under the guise that Josiah’s sons were worried about Joseph eating away their inheritance. However, Josiah Stowell had three sons and four daughters. His son Simpson, did not live in the area and, as we have seen, recommended Joseph to his father.The youngest son, Josiah Stowell Jr. testified in an 1830 trial that Joseph Smith was not a cheat [15] a position that reiterated later in life [16]. Two daughters also testified favorably of Joseph’s character at that 1830 trial. In fact, the only Stowell son to testify at the 1826 hearing was Horace. Horace’s testimony is rather short and ambiguous as to what his opinion of Joseph was, to the point that most accounts leave his statement out [17].

If I were to compile a list of the three main antagonists in the 1826 examination, I would include Peter Bridgeman(1804-1872), Arad Stowell (1783-1868), and David McMaster(1804-1888) or (1771-1848) [18]. A corresponding list for the 1830 trial would be Nathan Boynton (1788-1860), Abraham Willard Benton (1805-1867), and Cyrus McMaster (1801-1879) [19]. There are numerous connections between the two groups. The obvious one is that the McMasters were either brothers or father-son. Less obvious is that Cyrus was married to Peter Bridgeman’s sister, Electa, in early 1829. Another set of in-laws were Arad Stowell (Asa’s son) and Nathan Boynton, who had married Lepha Stowell (Arad’s sister) circa 1818 . As a show of his esteem, Arad named a son after Boynton in 1824. Peter Bridgeman was a nephew of Josiah’s wife Miriam and a couple of his other sisters would go on to marry Ebenezer Stowell, nephew of Josiah’s. Benton appears to be unrelated to the rest, but it is known that he studied medicine under Nathan Boynton. Ironically, Harriet Benton, a likely cousin of his, had earlier married Lyman Wight and moved to Ohio. There they became followers of Sidney Rigdon and actually converted to Mormonism within a few months of the 1830 trial Abraham Benton helped precipitate.

Many of the above mentioned individuals have an extended history with the Presbyterian church in the Bainbridge area. In 1819, Calvin Stowell was chosen as a presiding officer and with Asa and Arad Stowell was elected a trustee. Later on “February 7, 1825, at which Deacons Calvin and Arad Stowel, two of the members of said society presided, The South Bainbridge Presbyterian Society was organized, and Arad Stowel, David McMaster and Nathan Boynton were elected trustees.” [20] Josiah Stowell was also a Presbyterian deacon, according to Purple. There has been some debate on whether A. W. Benton was a Presbyterian or Universalist, but in either case he was a close associate of Nathan Boynton. The odd man out is Peter Bridgeman, who rapidly rose through the ranks to become a reverend for the Methodist church[21].

So what is the point in establishing all these connections among Joseph Smith’s persecutors? The Mormon side of the story has always emphasized the religious bigotry involved in dragging Joseph Smith into vexatious lawsuits. The critics have constructed a narrative that tries to frame Joseph as a con-artist before he became a prophet or pious fraud. It is clear to me that the Bainbridge conspirators were not really concerned about Joseph’s digging activities, given that they did not go after any of the leaders of their society that participated like Calvin and Asa Stowell. Instead they were more concerned at getting a conviction to discredit the religious claims Joseph Smith was making, even in 1826. Modern critics follow their lead. Unsophisticated critics insist that Joseph was found guilty. Sophisticated critics don’t care so much about the verdict so much as joining in a chorus with Benton “So much for the gift and power of God, by which Smith says he translated his book. Two transparent stones, undoubtedly of the same properties, and the gift of the same spirit as the one in which he looked to find his neighbor’s goods.”

Richard Bushman looks at it from the angle that Joseph’s seer abilities spiritually prepared a loyal inner circle to accept him as a prophet. Bushman especially focuses on Joseph’s credibility with his father. To me the most compelling evidence of Joseph’s progression is his father’s testimony at the 1826 hearing where he accepts that his son has a prophetic gift, he would just rather that Jr. use it for something more profound and useful.

[1] Mark Ashurst-McGee A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet. Masters Thesis (2000), Utah State University.

[2] Ronald W.Walker, “Joseph Smith, The Palmyra Seer. Brigham Young University Studies 24 (Fall 1984): 461–72. LINK

[3] Abraham Williard Benton “Mormonites,” Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate, April 9, 1831, vol. 2, p. 120. LINK

[4] W. D. Purple, “Joseph Smith, The Originator of Mormonism” Historical Reminiscences of the Town of Afton (Thursday, May 3, 1877) Norwich, NY LINK Note that this account contradicts the account above of Stowell first hearing about Joseph Smith in Palmyra.

[5] Articles of Agreement, Township of Harmony, Pennsylvania, November 1, 1825, published in Salt Lake Tribune (April 23, 1880) LINK

[6] William R. Hines, interviewed in Deming Naked Truths About Mormonism (1888)

[7] John Phillip Walker, ed. Dale Morgan on Early Mormonism: Correspondence and a New History Signature Books (1986)

[8] Wesley P. Walters, “Joseph Smith’s Bainbridge, N.Y. Court Trials” The Westminster Theological Journal 36:2, 123-155, 1974.

[9] Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents Volume 4, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002.

[10] Marquardt, H. Michael, and Wesley P. Walters. Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record. Salt Lake City: Smith Research Associates, 1994.

[11] James H. Smith, “History of Chenango and Madison Counties,” D. Mason & Co. – Syracuse, NY (1880) LINK

[12] Benjamin H. Hall, “History of Eastern Vermont, from its Earliest Settlement to the Close of the Eighteenth Century ” Albany, NY (1865) LINK

[13] JS-H 1:56 LINK

[14] For other locations and a chronology of Joseph Smith’s digs see Dan Vogel, “Locations of Joseph Smith’s Early Treasure Quests” Dialogue Vol.27:3 (1994)197-231 LINK

[15]B. H. Roberts, ed., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, vol I:88-90., (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1967)

[16]Mark Ashurst-McGee, “The Josiah Stowell Jr.-John S. Fullmer Correspondence,” Brigham Young University Studies 38:3 (1999) LINK

[17] For a comparison of examination (not trial!) accounts see Brandon U. Hansen, “The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith Jr.” LINK The most judgmental word attributed to Horace is “pretending.” However, according to Webster’s 1828 dictionary an alternative definition to pretend is “To put in a claim, truly or falsely; to hold out the appearance of being, possessing or performing.” LINK This is appears to be the working definition used in the accounts, even those who supported Joseph apparently used the term.

[18] It is unclear which McMaster is being referred to. Morgan, Walters, and Quinn all believe it is David McMaster, but seem unaware that there are two Davids who are father and son. It is likely the son who studied law and then practiced it in Bath, NY, and that makes him more likely to be the instigator behind the 1826 hearing. Someone had to to have knowledge to bring Joseph up on charges on such an obscure point of law. From the testimony of Arad Stowell and McMaster, I would suggest that they approached Joseph with the intent to entrap him by inviting him to demonstrate his gifts as a seer. David McMaster moved to Bath before the 1830 trial, but his fellow conspirators continued on without him.

[19] see for example John Matzko, “The Encounter of the Young Joseph Smith with Presbyterianism” Dialogue Vol 40:3 (2007)

[20] “History of Chenango and Madison Counties” (1880) LINK

[21] John McClintock, “Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature,” Harper Brothers (1889) LINK

Many of you know that my hobby is working with an LDS all volunteer group on the Internet. We maintain several Websites including www.FAIRlds.org, www.FAIRMormon.org, and www.Blacklds.org. This has been fulfilling for me as I have been able to interact with LDS scholars from BYU and other institutions as well as other students of history and the scriptures.

At www.FAIRLDS.org we work with individuals who have questions about church history or doctrine. I often hear heartbreaking stories from people have suffered much pain and anguish and who have eventually left the church because of a perceived problem with Church History, the prophet Joseph Smith, or some element of doctrine. Here in our own stake I know of several examples, so this hits close to home. In discussing the reasons for leaving, I am often reminded of what popular nineteenth-century American humorist who went by the stage name of Artemus Ward once said.

“It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we do know that just ain’t so.”

Some of us have a set of preconceived notions of how things are, how they should be, or how a church leader should act. Sometimes we have learned things from a trusted member of the church that we later find out to be not true. We mistakenly expect Sunday School to be a history class which deals with all of the problems and issues of the day, when it is really a time which uses the stories from our history to teach gospel principals. Much like in the Book of Mormon, it isn’t the history that is important, it is the gospel principals that we learn from it.

Additionally, I find that people frequently engage in something called “presentism.” That is the idea that ideas, beliefs and social structure today must be exactly like it was 150 years ago. Many members try to apply today’s values to a time when they simply don’t apply. In 1830, it was unfortunately debated in the US whether or not African American’s were really people who were capable of learning or if they even had souls. Families were sometimes started by people in their young teens. Most family cooking was done over an open fire, and the number one cause of death for women was skirts catching on fire. Number two was childbirth. Men generally farmed for a living and were lucky if they owned many books, if any or lived to a ripe old age. It is in this environment that the Church was organized. It wasn’t like the society of today.

President Gordon B. Hinckley said,

We seem to have a host of critics. Some appear intent on trying to destroy us. They mock that which is sacred. They discredit that which we call divine. Some critics have said that we have been caught with errors in our history, others have worked with great diligence seeking flaws in our early Church leaders. Those who criticize us have lost sight of the glory and wonder of this work. They are so busy finding fault with us that they do not see the greatness of the Lord’s work. They have lost sight of the spiritual spark that was developed in Palmyra, New York, which is now lighting fires of faith across the earth in many lands and in many languages.

President Hinckley went on to say,

From a vast amount of information our critics appear to select and write about those items which demean and belittle some men and women of the past who worked so hard in laying the foundation of this great cause. Readers of such writings seem to delight in picking up these unfavorable items. In so doing they are savoring some small morsel, rather than eating a beautiful and satisfying meal of many courses.

President Hinckley continues,

My plea is that as we continue our search for truth, particularly we of the Church, that we look for strength and goodness rather than weakness and failings in those who did so great a work in their time. We recognize that our forefathers were human. They doubtless made mistakes. Some of them acknowledged making mistakes. But the mistakes were minor when compared with the marvelous work which they accomplished.

There was only one perfect man who ever walked the earth. The Lord has used imperfect people in the process of building his perfect society. If some of them occasionally stumbled, or if their characters may have been slightly flawed in one way or another, the wonder is the greater that they accomplished so much.

The church has gotten a lot of new exposure in the press and on the Internet. Many members and non-members have been shocked by some of the information that they stumble across. Elders Cook and Ballard said in a recent interview discussing Suzanne Sateline’s article in the Wall Street Journal that the Church doesn’t avoid probing questions or scrutiny. The Church welcomes honest inquiry, he said. Opposing viewpoints should be discussed in a spirit of honesty and without rancor. They said the Church would not leave others to define its beliefs and its people. In some instances, anti-Mormon comments had been allowed to pass without much challenge. Elder Cook then said, “I don’t think we have to accept it when some people deliberately mischaracterize the Church.” For those who claim our history is a problem for the church, I have to ask what they are reading for history.

Does the history they read include the lives, histories, and testimonies of the witnesses who said over and over again that they had seen the plates and they had seen an angel?

Does it include the story of Martin Harris complaining how heavy the plates were as he held them on his lap for an hour and a half?

Does it include Martin Harris saying, “Well as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates”?

Does it include Oliver Cowdery speaking of the Book of Mormon translation from his deathbed and saying, “I know that whereof I testified is true. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the mind–it was real”?

Does it include the story of Katharine, Joseph Smith’s sister hiding the plates in her bed?

Does it include the quote from John Whitmer as he says, “I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides”?

Does the history include the many reports from others who also saw angels? Or the 121 independent eyewitness accounts of the mantel of Joseph Smith being passed on to Brigham Young on August 8, 1844, such as the one from nine-year-old William Van Orden who suddenly turned to his mother and said, “The Prophet [is] not dead, for I [see] him on the stand”?

As for the Book of Mormon, D&C, Book of Abraham, and Book of Moses, we have critics who find alleged problems and anachronisms which makes people question their authenticity. But, those individuals and Websites critical of the scriptures do not include the studies by Mesoamerican researchers, Hebraists and Egyptologists who publish about the things contained within the pages of these scripture that a farmer from 1830 could not have known.

I hope and pray that we aren’t trapped by the negative arguments of some or the negative experiences in our own life. Sometimes we have personal issues, a crisis, a wayward child or a personal weakness that leads us to seek out reasons for the church not to be true. I have talked with my daughters about a concept I call “The Church is true unless you meet a cute boy principle.” But, knowing that the early members of the church had weaknesses and made mistakes makes it easier for me to come to church in spite of my weaknesses. We all struggle to live up to what we perceive God’s expectations might be. Then when we don’t measure up and don’t feel worthy, it could make us want to stay home and not attend. But church is there for all of us, even with our personal weaknesses.

As one man said, church is there to make bad men good and good men better.

The Lord said to Peter:“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:“But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” (Luke 22:31–32.)It common to go through times in our life when we might have doubts or concern even if we have had spiritual manifestations in our life. God asked the brother of Jared, who had already heard His voice and seen His finger, “Believest thou the words which I shall speak?” (Ether 3:11) Even the Brother of Jared was allowed room to doubt.

In John 6:68, after the Lord preached some “hard things” the people turned away from him. He asked the twelve, “will ye also go away?” Peter answered “to whom, Lord, shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.”And one of my favorite passages is in Mark 9:24 when the father of the lunatic child says “Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief.”

I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that we have prophets today. I am thankful for the atonement of Jesus Christ. I hope and pray that we can all accept our own weaknesses and the weaknesses of others and I hope we can always maintain our faith.I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Recently I was asked for my opinion on Wikipedia’s article on Walker Lewis. Currently the state of the article is such that Wikipedia’s editors have recognized that it does not even meet their low scholarly standards and is not written from a neutral point of view. The Wikipedia entry is based on a scholarly article written by Connell O’Donovan for the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal. The Wikipedia article elevates some of O’Donovan’s prose that he clearly marks as speculation that goes beyond the evidence to the status of fact. For example, a comparison shows that Wikipedia twists the absence of any mention in contemporary diaries of Lewis’ presence to paint the picture that the Salt Lake Mormons were inhospitable to him.

Lewis left Massachusetts at the end of March 1851 and arrived in Salt Lake City about October 1. He received his Patriarchal Blessing under the hands of Patriarch John Smith, an uncle of Joseph Smith. After arriving, he asked a black Mormon from Connecticut, Jane Elizabeth Manning James, to marry him as his polygamous wife, but she turned him down. Otherwise, Lewis was completely ignored by his fellow Mormons. The missionaries and Apostles who had stayed in his home, eaten his food, and worshiped God under his roof refused to even acknowledge his presence now that he was in Salt Lake City. (Wikipedia, accessed 4 Mar 2008)

This blessing, coupled with a statement made by Jane James in February 1890, is the only evidence from Utah I have found that Lewis was in the Salt Lake valley for about six months. I can find no other Mormon/Utah record of his presence there. Unfortunately, none of the Mormons who knew him from Massachusetts and who were in Salt Lake or environs at the time recorded his stay that I have found. Unfortunately, none of the Mormons who knew him from Massachusetts and who were in Salt Lake or environs at the time recorded his stay that I have found. (O’Donovan)

O’Donovan goes on to conjecture about Lewis’ reaction to some pro-slavery, anti-miscegenation legislation passed with the support of Brigham Young. Lewis “must have been personally and politically appalled at this bigotry from his church leaders whom he had esteemed, welcomed into his home, trusted, and assisted.” O’Donovan then cites some speeches by Brigham Young. Despite finding “there is no record of Walker Lewis’ reaction to such rhetoric,” O’Donovan characterizes Lewis’ visit as a “frigid reception in ‘Zion’” with Zion in scare quotes. He suggests that Walker Lewis left the church after his visit to Utah, but provides little evidence to support that claim. Unless persuaded otherwise, I prefer to think of Lewis as a man who endured through very trying conditions to the end. While O’Donovan attempts to link the territorial legislation as a reaction to Lewis’ visit, a more compelling reason is that the Saints anticipated an easier path to statehood if they could be admitted as a slave state.

I depend on O’Donovan’s article for what I know about Walker Lewis. I read it with interest around the time it first came out. The article is a mixed bag. O’Donovan received encouragement from Margaret Young to pursue this study. In my eyes, Margaret deserves much respect for her work with Darius Gray for helping the Mormon community undergo healing for the hardships created by the doctrinal folklore used to support the priesthood ban. I have tickets to see the documentary they made that is currently making the rounds through film festivals (see Nobody Knows). In what must have been a labor of love, O’Donovan has uncovered a great deal of facts about the extended Lewis family’s involvement in the abolitionist movement. I feel edified learning about Walker’s interaction with the missionaries that ministered to his branch in Lowell, Massachusetts. Walker Lewis’ involvement in a type of masonry is also intriguing.

I recommend the article as a must read in Mormon studies, but I hope this post will help inoculate those who might find the information therein and analysis shocking and disorienting. Part of the problem here is that Mormonism does have what is considered racism by today’s standards in its past, so we must be careful not to shoot the messenger. However, while the article has numerous strengths, it is the flaws that tend to attract my critical attention. I do not interpret some of the sources the same way O’Donovan does, nor would I present them in the same context that he does. I don’t know how some of his wild, irresponsible speculations that the Danites “certainly … might have” killed at Brigham’s bidding passed peer review. O’Donovan frequently plays arm chair psychologist or passes judgment on Mormon leaders that appear to be uncalled for. How does he know what degree racism may have played in Appleby’s inquiries about the Lewis family? Or that Brigham Young was “incensed” about the situation, or that Brigham Young really would have enforced anti-miscegenation at the pain of death if if the Lewises lived on the frontier? Some scholars of Brigham Young, who have broadly read through his remarks on related issues of blood atonement, crime and punishment, retribution, vengeance, etc. have demonstrated time after time that Brigham’s bark was worse than his bite. He would talk tough but would never follow through and usually the surrounding text of any fiery proof-text usually reveals some excuse or another on why he wouldn’t follow through. Some of FAIR wiki’s articles that might be helpful are:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Blood_atonement
http://en.fairmormon.org/Brigham_Young_on_race_mixing
http://en.fairmormon.org/Blacks_and_the_priesthood:Repudiated_ideas
http://en.fairmormon.org/Blacks_and_the_priesthood

The title of O’Donovan’s article, The Mormon Priesthood Ban & Elder Q. Walker Lewis, is somewhat of a tease. Very little is done to establish that Brigham Young’s reaction to the news that Lewis’ son married a white woman was what dramatically shifted the priesthood policy. O’Donovan’s article could have been strengthened had he interacted more with prior scholarship on the topic advancing various theories for the ban’s origin. He summarizes his position:

I feel certain that William McCary’s troubling actions at Winter Quarters in the spring and fall of 1847, Young’s discovery of the Lewis-Webster marriage in December 1847, and Walker Lewis’ high standing in African Freemasonry, were the three most important factors in Brigham Young’s instigation of a priesthood ban against all men with African ancestry in late 1847 or early 1848.

While I can see two of these three factors as being important, I would not include them in a short list of most important factors of the ban. I consider the conflict in Missouri, the ensuing adoption of southern slave owner’s views in Church publications to placate them, and an increasingly eisegesic readings of scripture (including uniquely Mormon scripture) as more causal. I think that O’Donovan failed to make his case that Lewis’ masonry was known about and much less that it was a problem. Why would post-martyrdom Mormons impute guilt universally on all masons, given that many of their own were masons? Prior to the martyrdom, being a mason helped prepare one to understand the new temple ordinances and this made masons more likely to be selected for an initiation. So arguably, being a mason should have helped and not hindered any chance Walker Lewis had to receive his endowments. If evenly applied, a post-martyrdom temple ordinance ban would have affected white Mormon masons and we don’t see that at all.

Despite my nitpicking at some of Connell O’Donovan’s interpretations, my overall assessment is that his paper brings Walker Lewis out of of obscurity and restores his rightful place to be honored as Mormon pioneer. Walker Lewis was more than a pioneer, he was an Elias, one who prepared the way.

One of the ideas is to restore the third floor lodge room of the the Masonic lodge building in Nauvoo to the way it would have appeared in Joseph Smith’s day. To that end I have been in contact with the Grand Lodge of Illinois who have told me that there are several sets of lodge furnishings, alters podiums, columns, candle holders and other such items from lodges that have closed in the area which could be made available to restore the lodge room.

• 1. It restores the room as it would have appeared in the 1840′s. Which give us the opportunity to discuss Freemasonry and it role in the Nauvoo community of the period.
• 2. It provides a gentle way to introduce and deal with the subject of Freemasonry’s role in Church history. Members would at least have the opportunity to see what a lodge room looks like what is similar and what is different from the temple. In this way when the topic of Masonry come up it is not a complete unknown.
• 3. It extends the hand of fellowship to communities in the Nauvoo area and give them a role in the restoration of Nauvoo.
• 4. It counters the idea that we are somehow hiding part of our past.
• 5. It provides good publicity both to Nauvoo Restoration, Inc. and to the Grand Lodge of Illinois

Diagram of possible layout of lodge room

Please feel free to share your comments with me at gkearney@gmail.com.

**Update 2/26/’08: See Greg Smith’s comment below. My original wording is in error. Greg had already had most of his article independently conceived/written to respond to general art-based criticism levied much before being aware of the art blog in Wecker’s article.

The prime example that critics use to complain that the LDS Church’s art misrepresents historical facts are pictures that show Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon with the golden plates present, rather than placing his face in a hat to limit outside light from interfering with revelation received from a seer stone.

I suspect there are two main reasons for this. First, I do not think the artists were aware of the historical accounts that report the seer stone in a hat method, although those accounts have appeared in church publications. Second, the accounts show that the translation process did not always occur the same way. Joseph translated the Book of Mormon in two locations: first Harmony, PA and second Fayette, NY. Witnesses to the Fayette process all report the seer stone in the hat method, while most witnesses in Harmony report there being a curtain between Joseph Smith and his scribe, with the golden plates being present. One of Smith’s first scribes, Martin Harris, reported that Joseph switched processes, hence he would have likely done so before Oliver Cowdery took over as a scribe in Harmony. Since the translation pictures in church publications usually portray Joseph and Oliver together, they mix and match elements from different translation periods.

None of the historical accounts have Joseph Smith sitting on stairs while translating, so that blog is taking some artistic liberties.

Given that church historians were aware of the various accounts it is a puzzle that the art made it into church publications. However, an interview of one scholar, Robert J. Matthews, on a related topic shows how that might have happened:

“JBMS: Do you think there are things that artists could do in portraying the Book of Mormon?

RJM: Possibly. To me it would be particularly helpful if they could illustrate what scholars have done. When I was on the Correlation Committee [of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints], there were groups producing scripture films. They would send to us for approval the text of the words that were to be spoken. We would read the text and decide whether we liked it or not. They would never send us the artwork for clearance. But when you see the artwork, that makes all the difference in the world. It was always too late then. I decided at that point that it is so difficult to create a motion picture, or any illustration, and not convey more than should be conveyed. If you paint a man or woman, they have to have clothes on. And the minute you paint that clothing, you have said something either right or wrong. It would be a marvelous help if there were artists who could illustrate things that researchers and archaeologists had discovered.”

Brigham dons a white hat

I am reminded of elements in the National Treasure sequel. In NT2, an ancestral figure is wrongly accused of a conspiracy to commit a murder. A scholarly team of experts search the archives and find a book that is passed down through successive Presidents. A dead language written in code is deciphered by a very select specialist and is found to contain information exonerating the ancestral figure. If I can take take liberties with Alexander’s lecture, Brigham Young doubles as the ancestral and presidential figure; Leonard, Alexander, Walker, and Turley correspond to the Riley Poole and the Nicholas Cage characters; and LaJean Purcell Carruth deciphered the presidential office journal (and other items) written in Deseret Alphabet. The newly discovered information makes it clear that federal prosecutors —not Brigham Young!—-are the most responsible for not not bringing the perpetrators to justice. Thomas Alexander writes:

On July 5, 1859, after the public knew that Cumming had received word from Washington placing the army under the governor’s control, Young met with George A. Smith, Albert Carrington, and James Ferguson. They discussed the “reaction to the Mountain Meadow Massacre.” Young told them that US. attorney Alexander Wilson had called “to consult with him about making some arrests of” the accused.[95]
On the same day, Wilson had met with Young. Young told him “that if the judges would open a court at Parowan or some other convenient location in the south, .. . unprejudiced and uninfluenced by. . . the army, so that man could have a fair and impartial trial He would go there himself, and he presumed that Gov. Cumming would also go . . . ” He “would use all his influence to have the parties arrested and have the whole. . . matter investigated thoroughly and impartially and justice meted out to every man.” Young said he would not exert himself, however, “to arrest men to be treated like dogs and dragged about by the army, and confined and abused by them,’ presumably referring to the actions of Cradlebaugh and the army in Provo. Young said that if the judges and army treated people that way, the federal officials “must hunt them up themselves.”[96]
Wilson agreed that it was unfair “to drag men and their witnesses 200 or 300 miles to trial.” Young said “the people wanted a fair and impartial court of justice, like they have in other states and territories, and if he had anything to do with it, the army must keep its place.” Wilson said he felt “the proposition was reasonable and he would propose it to the judges.”[97]
Now confident that the army would not intrude and abuse or murder Mormons, and that the US. attorney and governor would support them, the church leaders lent their influence to bringing the accused into court. On June 15, 1859, to prepare the way for the administration of justice, Brigham Young had told George A. Smith and Jacob Hamblin that “as soon as a Court of Justice could be held, so that men could be heard without the influence of the military he should advise men accused to come forward and demand trial on the charges preferred against them for the Mountain Meadow Massacre” as he had previously done. Then he again sent George A. Smith and Amasa Lyman south, this time to urge those accused of the crime to prepare for trial and to try to suppress Mormon-authored crime[98].

95. Historian’s Office Journal. July 5, 1859, Carruth transcription of Deseret Alphabet entry.
96. Ibid..
97, Ibid.
98. Historian’s Office Journal, May 25, June 18, and July 5, 1859, Carruth transcription of Deseret Alphabet; George A. Smith so William H. Dame, June 19, 1859, Historian’s Office Letterpress copybooks 1854—1879, 1885—1886, 2:127, LDS Church Archives; Lee, Mormon Chronicle, 1:214 (August 5[6], 1859).

Brigham inherits a black hat

Though ambiguous, it seems plausible that Brigham Young bought into different versions of the story at different times, a victim of the propaganda of the Iron County militia leaders which ranged from “The Indians did it,” to “The Indians made us do it,” to the massacred train were part of prior violent mob activity or “They were asking for it,” to “They were threatening to bring an army back from California.” That sets up the background for an incident that occurred a couple of years later that Alexander covers:

Moreover, as late as 1861, Young still believed the stories of Baker/Fancher crimes which led to the massacre, in spite of his efforts to bring the perpetrators to trial. On visiting the massacre site in May 1861, Woodruff recorded Young’s assessment that the plaque Carleton had erected on the mass grave which read: “Vengeance is mine and I will repay saith the Lord:’ should read: “Vengence is mine and I (the Lord] have taken a little.” Young clearly refused to take responsibility for the massacre. Later, the same month, Young told John D. Lee that the emigrants “Meritd their fate, & the only thing that ever troubled him was the lives of the Women & children, but that under the circumstances [this] could not be avoided.”

As Justin from the Wasp pointed out to me, one of Alexander’s sources, John D. Lee’s 1861 diary is troubling. Juanita Brooks and her co-editor of the JDL diaries find the entry below to be evidence of Brigham Young’s complicity in the post massacre coverup.

Pres. Young Said that the company that was usede up at the Mountain Meadowes were the Fathers, Mothe[rs], Bros., Sisters & connections of those that Muerders the Prophets; they Meritd their fate, & the only thing that ever troubled him was the lives of the Women & children, but that under the circumstances [this] could not be avoided. Although there had been [some?] that wantd to betreyed the Brethrn into the hands of their Enimies, for that thing [they] will be Damned & go down to Hell. I would be Glad to see one of those traitors, though I [don't] Suppose that there is any here now. They have ran away, & when he came to the Monument that contained their Bones, he made this remark, Vengeance is Mine Saith the Lord, & I have taken a little of it.

Which hat?

I would like to get some reaction from our readers about ways to understand these conflicting images of Brigham Young.