Criticism of Mormonism/Books/American Massacre/Chapter 3

FAIR Answers Wiki Table of Contents

Response to claims made in "Chapter 3: Nauvoo, 1840"

Chapter 2

A FAIR Analysis of: American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, a work by author: Sally Denton

Chapter 4

Response to claims made in American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, "Chapter 3: Nauvoo, 1840"

Jump to Subtopic:

• Response to claim: 23 - "Having suffered beatings and tarrings at the hands of Mormon baiters years earlier, and having faced impending death at various junctures, Smith sensed rightly that events in Nauvoo would be the grand finale of his life"
• Response to claim: 23 - Building a spired marble temple took precedence over everything else
• Response to claim: 24 - The Council of Fifty was "a group of princes" who would rule the "Mormon empire"
• Response to claim: 25 - Joseph had himself ordained "king" during the time that he was running for President
• Response to claim: 25 - Joseph had a "narcissistic" "theme of deceiving self and others"
• Response to claim: 26 - "Nauvoo, unlike Kirtland, had become the sanctuary for strange ceremonials and shrouded rites many members found increasingly alien and offensive"
• Response to claim: 26- A "Mormon historian" claims that celestial marriage "allowed the most ordinary backwoodsman to become a god and rule over worlds of his own creation with as many wives as his righteousness could sustain"
• Response to claim: 26 - Joseph "plunged into new sealings to married women, sisters, and very young girls"
• Response to claim: 27 - The founders of the Nauvoo Expositor were "men who knew too much"
• Response to claim: 27 - "Smith ordered the Nauvoo Legion to storm the newspaper, destroy the press, and burn all extant issues"
• Response to claim: 27 - The author claims that "the constitutional defenders of the First Amendment" called for Joseph Smith's arrest after the destruction of the Expositor
• Response to claim: 28 - Joseph sent orders to the Nauvoo Legion from Carthage Jail to come and free him
• Response to claim: 28 - The author claims that "lore had it" that Joseph gave the Masonic distress signal "before calling out: 'Oh Lord my God. Is there no help for the widow's son?"
• Response to claim: 29 - The author claims that Joseph's death was "second in importance only to that of Jesus Christ"
• Response to claim: 29 - Allen J. Stout's journal says that he will avenge Joseph's blood to the fourth generation
• Response to claim: 29 - D. Michael Quinn said that Joseph "failed to clarify for the highest leadership of the church the precise method of succession God intended"
• Response to claim: 30 - Sidney Rigdon is claimed to have "recently apostatized over Smith's attempted seduction of his daughter in to a polygamous marriage"
• Response to claim: 31 - Sidney Rigdon, "Knowing he could not compete with Smith as a seer..."
• Response to claim: 32 - The temple is claimed to have "placed under the most sacred obligations to avenge the blood of the Prophet, whenever an opportunity offered, and to teach their children to do the same"
• Response to claim: 32 - The "entire Mormon people" became "sworn and avowed enemies of the American nation"
• Response to claim: 36 - The author claims that Brigham "disposed of his rivals." Stanley P. Hirshson is quoted as claiming that Nauvoo became a "police state"
• Response to claim: 36 - The author claims that John D. Lee was "an integral component in the new power structure" after Joseph's death
• Response to claim: 37 - The author claims that Emma and other Smith relatives returned to Far West and founded the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
• Response to claim: 37 - The author claims that Joseph wanted people to receive their endowments for the "Mormon road to heaven"
• Response to claim: 37 - LDS missionaries to England "capitalized on the intolerable social and economic conditions" in order to gain converts
• Response to claim: 38 - Quoting D. Michael Quinn, the author notes that Brigham said that women "have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God"
• Response to claim: 38 - The author claims that Brigham "commended his police for nearly beating to death an apostate within the walls of the temple"
• Response to claim: 38-39 - The author mentions "the pending indictment of two leaders of the Church on counterfeiting charges..."
• Response to claim: 39 - The author claims that "thousands of armed Mormons and Gentiles faced off" in Nauvoo

Response to claim: 23 - "Having suffered beatings and tarrings at the hands of Mormon baiters years earlier, and having faced impending death at various junctures, Smith sensed rightly that events in Nauvoo would be the grand finale of his life"

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

 Author's quote: Having suffered beatings and tarrings at the hands of Mormon baiters years earlier, and having faced impending death at various junctures, Smith sensed rightly that events in Nauvoo would be the grand finale of his life.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The author earlier characterized Joseph's persecutions as "imaginary". Now, they seem to have been real. She also seems to be able to read Joseph's mind.

Response to claim: 23 - Building a spired marble temple took precedence over everything else

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

 Author's quote: Building a spired marble temple took precedence over everything else…

Author's sources:

No source provided.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

This is another indication of sloppy research: The Nauvoo temple was made of limestone that was quarried locally, not marble which would have required importation.

Response to claim: 24 - The Council of Fifty was "a group of princes" who would rule the "Mormon empire"

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

The Council of Fifty was "a group of princes" who would rule the "Mormon empire."

Author's sources:

• David L. Bigler, Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847–1896 (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1998), 24. (bias and errors) Review

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The Council of Fifty included non-Mormons as members.

Question: What was the Council of Fifty?

Joseph Smith received a revelation which called for the organization of a special council

On 7 April 1842, Joseph Smith received a revelation titled "The Kingdom of God and His Laws, With the Keys and Power Thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ," which called the for the organization of a special council separate from, but parallel to, the Church. Since its inception, this organization has been generally been referred to as "the Council of Fifty" because of its approximate number of members.

The Council of Fifty was designed to serve as something of a preparatory legislature in the Kingdom of God

Latter-day Saints believe that one reason the gospel was restored was to prepare the earth for the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Just as the Church was to bring about religious changes in the world, the Council of Fifty was intended to bring a political transformation. It was therefore designed to serve as something of a preparatory legislature in the Kingdom of God. Joseph Smith ordained the council to be the governing body of the world, with himself as chairman, Prophet, Priest, and King over the Council and the world (subject to Jesus Christ, who is "King of kings").

The Council was organized on 11 March 1844, at which time it adopted rules of procedure, including those governing legislation. One rule included instructions for passing motions:

To pass, a motion must be unanimous in the affirmative. Voting is done after the ancient order: each person voting in turn from the oldest to the youngest member of the Council, commencing with the standing chairman. If any member has any objections he is under covenant to fully and freely make them known to the Council. But if he cannot be convinced of the rightness of the course pursued by the Council he must either yield or withdraw membership in the Council. Thus a man will lose his place in the Council if he refuses to act in accordance with righteous principles in the deliberations of the Council. After action is taken and a motion accepted, no fault will be found or change sought for in regard to the motion.

What is interesting about this rule is that it required each council member, by covenant, to voice his objections to proposed legislation. Those council members who dissented and could not be convinced to change their minds were to withdraw from the council, however, they would suffer no repercussions by doing so. Thus, full freedom of conscience was maintained by the council — not exactly the sort of actions a despot or tyrant would allow.

The Council never rose to the stature Joseph intended

Members (which included individuals that were not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) were sent on expeditions west to explore emigration routes for the Saints, lobbied the American government, and were involved in Joseph Smith's presidential campaign. But only three months after it was established, Joseph was killed, and his death was the beginning of the Council's end. Brigham Young used it as the Saints moved west and settled in the Great Basin, and it met annually during John Taylor's administration, but since that time the Council has not played an active role among the Latter-day Saints.

Response to claim: 25 - Joseph had himself ordained "king" during the time that he was running for President

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

Joseph had himself ordained "king" during the time that he was running for President.

Author's sources:

No source provided.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Joseph was anointed "king," but not in any political sense.

Question: Was Joseph Smith anointed to be "King over the earth" by the Council of Fifty?

Joseph was never anointed King over the earth in any political sense

Some people claim that Joseph Smith had himself anointed king over the whole world, and that this shows he was some sort of megalomaniac.

The Council of Fifty, while established in preparation for a future Millennial government under Jesus Christ (who is the King of Kings) was to be governed on earth during this preparatory period by the highest presiding ecclesiastical authority, which at the time was the Prophet Joseph Smith. Joseph had previously been anointed a King and Priest in the Kingdom of God by religious rites associated with the fullness of the temple endowment, and was placed as a presiding authority over this body in his most exalted position within the kingdom of God (as a King and a Priest).

Joseph was anointed as the presiding authority over an organization that was to prepare for the future reign of Jesus Christ during the Millennium

The fact that Joseph's prior anointing was referenced in his position as presiding authority over this body creates the confusion that he had been anointed King of the Earth. He was in fact only anointed as the presiding authority over an organization that was to prepare for the future reign of Jesus Christ during the Millennium. The fact that Joseph had submitted his name for consideration as President of the United States during this same period adds fodder for critics seeking to malign the character of the Prophet.

Response to claim: 25 - Joseph had a "narcissistic" "theme of deceiving self and others"

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

Joseph had a "narcissistic" "theme of deceiving self and others."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The author is simply repeating another author's opinion.

Response to claim: 26 - "Nauvoo, unlike Kirtland, had become the sanctuary for strange ceremonials and shrouded rites many members found increasingly alien and offensive"

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

 Author's quote: Nauvoo, unlike Kirtland, had become the sanctuary for strange ceremonials and shrouded rites many members found increasingly alien and offensive…

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The author contradicts herself: She earlier stated that these things were introduced in Kirtland. On page 14, speaking of Kirtland, the author states: "He then initiated the secret rituals that would further repel their conventional Christian neighbors-anointings, endowments, proxy baptisms, visions, healings, writhing ecstasies, and, especially, the concepts of 'eternal progression' and 'celestial marriage.'"

Proxy baptisms were not introduced until Nauvoo, they were not known at Kirtland. Healings and visions were present from the Church's very beginnings. "Writhing ecstasies" were condemned by LDS scripture by 1831 (see DC 50:).

Response to claim: 26- A "Mormon historian" claims that celestial marriage "allowed the most ordinary backwoodsman to become a god and rule over worlds of his own creation with as many wives as his righteousness could sustain"

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

A "Mormon historian," (Will Bagley) claims that celestial marriage "allowed the most ordinary backwoodsman to become a god and rule over worlds of his own creation with as many wives as his righteousness could sustain."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Bagley is not a "Mormon historian"—his account is invariably hostile to LDS leaders and truth claims.

Question: Do Mormon men believe that they will become "gods of their own planets" and rule over others?

Mormons believe in human deification, but what this doctrine means or entails is beyond human comprehension

It is claimed by some that Mormons believe that they can push themselves higher in a type of 'celestial pecking order.' This is often expressed by the claim that Latter-day Saint men wish to become "gods of their own planets." One critic even extends this to our "own universe,"

Mormons teach that by obedience to all the commandments of Mormonism, a Mormon may attain the highest degree of heaven and ultimately become a god, creating and ruling over his own universe. Do you believe that? Is this your ultimate personal goal?

Members of the Church—like early Christians—believe in human deification or theosis. They assert that this doctrine is taught in the Bible and by modern revelation. However, what this doctrine means or entails is beyond human comprehension anyway. "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him," taught Paul (1 Corinthians 2:9).

Most members of the Church realize that they have enough on their plates to do and become through Christian discipleship and keeping their covenants. They do not spend much time concerned about the details of their future state. They are simply confident that they will be happy, in families, and back in the presence of God where they will continue to do His will.

Certainly we can have the end in mind, remembering the relationship of Father to child is crucial. He will always, through all eternity, be our Father and our God. Still, it would be unwise to jump the gun and assume we are practically almost there; we have plenty to do in the meantime, and an eternal and abiding need for the grace of Christ to compensate for our manifest inadequacies.

The critics' accusations along these lines are a caricature of LDS belief, and omit virtually everything of importance in their discussion of this doctrine.

The caricature: Mormons wishing to "get their own planet"

Mormons, along with many other Christian denominations, believe in deification or theosis, based on the teaching that we can become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17). Little is known, though much might be speculated, about the specific details of our potential under this doctrine. Reducing it to ruling a planet caricatures a profound and complex belief. The use of the word “planet” makes Mormons seem more like sci-fi enthusiasts than devout Christians.

This isn’t just a quibble about semantics. Claims that Mormons hope for “their own planets” almost always aim to disrespect and marginalize, not to understand or clarify. The reality is that we seek eternal life, which we consider to be a life like that of our Father in Heaven. We consider our immediate task on Earth to learn to understand and obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than speculate on what life might be like if we achieve exaltation. Specifics about the creation of worlds and the ability to govern them upon achieving eternal life are not clarified in Latter-day Saint scripture. Attempts to portray these concepts as simply wanting to “get our own planet” are a mockery of Latter-day Saint beliefs.

The reality: Latter-day Saints wishing to become like their Father in Heaven

Much criticism of Joseph Smith and the Church in general stems from a teaching regarding the eternal potential of mankind. The Church believes that men and women are the "offspring" of Heavenly Parents (see Acts 17:28-29) composed of the same eternal substance (see DC 93:33-35) and hence we have divine possibilities through the grace of Christ. Latter-day Saints believe that they can achieve a life like that of our Father in Heaven. This implies that one can eventually participate in similar works, among which would be the creation of worlds. In 2001, Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles noted,

The real life we’re preparing for is eternal life. Secular knowledge has for us eternal significance. Our conviction is that God, our Heavenly Father, wants us to live the life that He does. We learn both the spiritual things and the secular things “so we may one day create worlds [and] people and govern them” (Henry B. Eyring, quoting Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, October 2002.)

Elder's Eyring and Kimball are not the only ones to make such references. Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and Joseph Fielding Smith all associated becoming like our Heavenly Father with the creation of worlds, and the populating of these worlds with spirit children.

However, there are many names for (and many interpretations of) this belief in and out of the Church. There are various schools of thought on what it might mean for a person to become a "god" after this life. On this view, Brigham Young didn't teach of countless gods doing their own thing in countless universes, each out for their own concerns. According to Brigham, there will be no such separate kingdoms of personal power

...to yourself, by yourself, and for yourself, regardless of every other creature.

But the truth is, you are not going to have a separate kingdom; I am not going to have a separate kingdom; it is not our prerogative to have it on this earth. If you have a kingdom and a dominion here, it must be concentrated in the head; if we are ever prepared for an eternal exaltation, we must be concentrated in the head of the eternal Godhead...If we fancy that we have an independent interest here and in the world to come, we shall fail in getting any of it.

Your interest must be concentrated in the head on the earth, and all of our interest must center in the Godhead in eternity, and there is no durable interest in any other channel.

Along these lines, consider the interesting sermon by Heber C. Kimball from 1856. In this discourse, President Kimball tangentially referred to deification, not as a glorious declaration that we will become gods or godlike, but to remind his listeners not to put the cart before the horse. We ought to consider becoming true "Saints" before focusing too much on being gods.

Heber said:

Many think that they are going right into the celestial kingdom of God, in their present ignorance, to at once receive glories and powers; that they are going to be Gods, while many of them are so ignorant, that they can see or know scarcely anything. Such people talk of becoming Gods, when they do not know anything of God, or of His works; such persons have to learn repentance, and obedience to the law of God; they have got to learn to understand angels, and to comprehend and stick to the principles of this Church.

…I bear testimony of this, and I wish you would listen to counsel and lay aside every sin that doth so easily beset you, and turn to the Lord with full purpose of heart.</ref>

Similarly, during the King Follett discourse, Joseph Smith is said to have taught:

When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.

The need for divine grace

Christ said "be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect" (see Matthew 5:48) and members of the Church tend to take that charge literally. The trouble is, some Saints might feel they can or even must achieve this impossible goal through their own efforts. In conversations about grace and works Mormons are quick to quote: "faith without works is dead," (see James 2:20), often in reaction to extreme conservative Protestantism's claims that one can be saved by faith alone without a concurrent change in behavior and life wrought by that faith. In this respect, the Latter-day Saints share far more with the early Christians than they do with modern conservative Protestantism.

Members must also remember, however, that works without faith is also dead, and Heber seems to be trying to express that message.

Here we see an early example of a Church leader discussing "grace," though he still maintains a perspective in which works are essential. It is for us, today, to focus on today, and retain a remission of sins relying on Christ, as the light grows brighter and brighter until the perfect day, when the rest of this doctrine can be figured out more clearly. In the meantime, our probation continues, and Heber had a few pieces of advice to impart:

We cannot become perfect, without we are assisted by our heavenly Father. We must be faithful and of one heart, and one mind, and let every man and woman take course to build up and not pull down. See that you save your grain, that you may save yourselves from the wicked of the world. Try to take care of every thing that is good to eat, for this is the work of the Lord God Almighty, and we shall have times that will test the integrity of this people, that will test who is honest and who is not.

Omitting prayer is calculated to lead the mind away from those duties which are incumbent upon us; then let us attend to our prayers and all our duties, and you will know that brother Brigham and his brethren have told you of these things...

There are trying times ahead of you, do you not begin to feel and see them? If you do not, I say you are asleep. I wish that the spirit which rests upon a few individuals could be upon you, everyone of you, it would be one of the most joyful times that brother Brigham and I ever saw with the Saints of God upon this earth.

Response to claim: 26 - Joseph "plunged into new sealings to married women, sisters, and very young girls"

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

"One historian" (Will Bagley) claimed that Joseph "plunged into new sealings to married women, sisters, and very young girls."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The plural marriages were unusual, to say the least; the younger ages of the brides were much less so.

Question: Why was Joseph Smith sealed to young women?

Joseph Smith's polygamous marriages to young women may seem difficult to understand or explain today, but in his own time such age differences were not typically an obstacle to marriage

Some of Joseph Smith's polygamous marriages were to young women.

• Were these marriages to young women evidence that he was immoral, or perhaps even a pedophile?
• One critic of the church notes, "Joseph Smith married over 30 women, some as young as 14 years old..."

Joseph Smith's polygamous marriages to young women may seem difficult to understand or explain today, but in his own time such age differences were not typically an obstacle to marriage. The plural marriages were unusual, to say the least; the younger ages of the brides were much less so. Critics do not provide this perspective because they wish to shock the audience and have them judge Joseph by the standards of the modern era, rather than his own time.

The information we have on Joseph Smith's plural marriages is sketchy, simply because there were few official records kept at the time because of the fear of misunderstanding and persecution. What we do know is culled from journals and reminiscences of those who were involved.

The most conservative estimates indicate that Joseph entered into plural marriages with 29–33 women, 7 of whom were under the age of 18. The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of LDS apostle Heber C. Kimball, who was 14. The rest were 16 (two) or 17 (three). One wife (Maria Winchester) about which virtually nothing is known, was either 14 or 15.

Helen Mar Kimball

Some people have concluded that Helen did have sexual relations with Joseph, which would have been proper considering that they were married with her consent and the consent of her parents. However, historian Todd Compton does not hold this view; he criticized the anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner for using his book to argue for sexual relations, and wrote:

The Tanners made great mileage out of Joseph Smith's marriage to his youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball. However, they failed to mention that I wrote that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there may have been no sexuality. (p. 638) All the evidence points to this marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage.

In other words, polygamous marriages often had other purposes than procreation—one such purpose was likely to tie faithful families together, and this seems to have been a purpose of Joseph's marriage to the daughter of a faithful Apostle. (See: Law of Adoption.)

Critics who assume plural marriage "is all about sex" may be basing their opinion on their own cultural biases and assumptions, rather than upon the actual motives of Church members who participated in the practice.

Evidence from the "Temple Lot" case of non-consummation of Helen Mar Kimball marriage

Hales has identified a further line of evidence which suggests that Helen's marriage was not consummated. In 1892, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS, now Community of Christ) brought suit against the Hendrickite, or "Temple Lot" break-off group. They claimed that the Independence, Missouri temple site was rightfully RLDS property, since they were the direct heirs of Joseph Smith's original religious group.

Although not embracing plural marriage themselves, the Temple Lot group was anxious to demonstrate that Joseph Smith had taught plural marriage--for, if this was so, then the RLDS (who denied that Joseph had practiced it, and certainly did not embrace the doctrine) would have difficulty proving that they were the direct successors to the church founded by Joseph.

Hales reports:

Nine of Joseph Smith's plural wives were still living when depositions started at Salt Lake City on March 14, 1892. Three were polyandrous wives (Zina Huntington Jacobs Young, Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, and Patty Bartlett Sessions) and six were nonpolyandrous (Helen Mar Kimball, Martha McBride, Almera Johnson, Emily Partridge, Malissa Lott, and Lucy Walker.) Factors evidently affecting the choice of witnesses involved the health and travel distances for the women, and importantly, whether their polygamous marriages to the Prophet included conjugality. Non-sexual sealings would have been treated as spiritual marriages of little importance and would have played right into the hands of RLDS attorneys....

Among nonpolyandrous wives who were not summoned was Martha McBride who lived in Hooper, Utah (thirty-seven miles to the north). McBride's relationship with Joseph Smith is poorly documented, with no evidence of sexual relations....Also passed by was Salt Lake resident Helen Mar Kimball who had written two books defending the practice of plural marriage. Her sealing to the Prophet ocurred when she was only fourteen and the presence or absence of sexual relations in her plural marriage is debated by historians.

Throughout the length question-and-answer sessions with Malissa Lott, Emily Partridge, and Lucy Walker, the details of their polygamous marriages with Joseph Smith were paramount; the physical aspect of sexuality was a core issue. If [Helen or others] could not testify to such relations, their testimonies as the Prophet's polygamous wives could hurt the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) cause.

Helen's personal account

Helen "took pen and paper in hand before she died to describe vividly her ties as a member of the Latter-day Saint Church during its first two decades of existence in a series of articles published in the Woman's Exponent" in the 1880s. Some of her articles dealt with plural marriage: "Her personal remembrances of those days constitute an important source that, taken together with other first-hand accounts by participants, provides a more complete view of the introduction of one of the most distinctive features of nineteenth-century Mormonism." Helen Mar's writings, an important source of LDS history, were published by BYU's Religious Studies Center in 1997 in a book entitled A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History. The book also includes her 1881 autobiography to her children wherein, concerning her marriage to the Prophet Joseph Smith, she wrote:

I have long since learned to leave all with [God], who knoweth better than ourselves what will make us happy. I am thankful that He has brought me through the furnace of affliction & that He has condesended to show me that the promises made to me the morning that I was sealed to the Prophet of God will not fail & I would not have the chain broken for I have had a view of the principle of eternal salvation & the perfect union which this sealing power will bring to the human family & with the help of our Heavenly Father I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises.

Fanny Alger

One of the wives about whom we know relatively little is Fanny Alger, Joseph's first plural wife, whom he came to know in early 1833 when she stayed at the Smith home as a house-assistant of sorts to Emma (such work was common for young women at the time). There are no first-hand accounts of their relationship (from Joseph or Fanny), nor are there second-hand accounts (from Emma or Fanny's family). All that we do have is third hand accounts, most of them recorded many years after the events.

Unfortunately, this lack of reliable and extensive historical detail leaves much room for critics to claim that Joseph Smith had an affair with Fanny and then later invented plural marriage as way to justify his actions. The problem is we don't know the details of the relationship or exactly of what it consisted, and so are left to assume that Joseph acted honorably (as believers) or dishonorably (as critics).

There is some historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored, so it is perfectly legitimate to argue that Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger was such a case. Mosiah Hancock (a Mormon) reported a wedding ceremony; and apostate Mormons Ann Eliza Webb Young and her father Chauncery both referred to Fanny's relationship as a "sealing." Ann Eliza also reported that Fanny's family was very proud of Fanny's relationship with Joseph, which makes little sense if it was simply a tawdry affair. Those closest to them saw the marriage as exactly that—a marriage.

Historical and cultural perspective

Plural marriage was certainly not in keeping with the values of "mainstream America" in Joseph Smith's day. However, modern readers also judge the age of the marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century.

Within Todd Compton's book on Joseph Smith's marriages, he also mentions the following monogamous marriages:

Wife	Wife's Age	Husband	Husband's Age	Difference in age
Lucinda Pendleton	18	William Morgan	44	26
Marinda Johnson	19	Orson Hyde	29	10
Almira McBride	17	Sylvester Stoddard	40s	>23
Fanny Young	44	Roswell Murray	62	18

And, a variety of Mormon and non-Mormon historical figures had similar wide differences in age:

Husband	Husband's Age	Wife	Wife's Age	Difference
Johann Sebastian Bach	36	Anna Magdalena Wilcke	19	17
Lord Baden-Powell (Founder of Scouting)	55	Olave Soames	23	32
William Clark (of the Lewis and Clark Expedition)	37	Julia Hancock	16	21
Grover Cleveland (22nd, 24th US President)	49	Frances Cleveland	21	28
Thomas A. Edison	24	Mary Stillwell	16	8
Thomas A. Edison	39	Mina Miller	20	19
Martin Harris (1808)	24	Lucy Harris (1st cousin)	15	9
Levi Ward Hancock (7 April 1803)	30	Clarissa Reed	17	13
Andrew Mellon	45	Nora Mary McMullen	20	25
John Milton (Paradise Lost)	34	Mary Powell (1st wife)	17	17
John Milton	55	Elizabeth Minshull (3rd wife)	24	31
Edgar Allen Poe	26	Virginia Clemn (his cousin)	13	13
Alexander Smith	23	Elizabeth Kendall	16	7
David Hyrum Smith	26	Clara Hartshorn	18	8
Frederick Granger Williams Smith	21	Annie Maria Jones	16	5
Joseph Smith, III	66	Ada Rachel Clark	29	37
John Tyler (US President, 1844)	56	Julia Gardiner	24	32
Almonzo Wilder	28	Laura Ingalls (Little House)	18	10

Statistical information for marital ages is available from the 1850 census. Using a 1% random sample of individuals, 989 men and 962 women indicated they had been married within the last year. The plot below breaks these individuals down by census age.

Of note is that 41.7% of women married as teenagers compared to only 4.1% of men. The mean age for men was more than five years older than that for women (27.6 vs. 22.5). For young women, marriage in the early to mid teens was rare, but not unheard of as both the anecdotal and statistical evidence above show. Teenage brides married a husband that averaged 6.6 +/- 4.7 (std) years older. To put that in perspective, 13% of the time the husband was over 10 years older than his teenage wife.

The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, though it is still not uncommon. In the U.S. today, in most states, the "age of consent" is set by statute to be 18. This is the age at which a person can consent to sexual activity or to marriage. However, even today, the "marriageable age," the minimum age at which a person may marry with parental permission or with a judge's permission, is 16 in most states. In California, there is no minimum marriageable age; a child of any age may marry with parental consent. So Joseph Smith's marriage to Helen Mar Kimball, having been done with her parents' permission, would be legal in California even today, except for the polygamous aspect of it.

But the modern age limits in most states represent only the modern attitude. The age of consent under English common law was ten. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had the declared age of consent to be ten. Some had raised it to twelve, and Delaware had lowered it to seven!

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards. As one non-LDS scholar of teenage life in American history noted:

Until the twentieth century, adult expectations of young people were determined not by age but by size. If a fourteen-year-old looked big and strong enough to do a man's work on a farm or in a factory or mine, most people viewed him as a man. And if a sixteen-year-old was slower to develop and couldn't perform as a man, he wasn't one. For, young women, the issue was much the same. To be marriageable was the same as being ready for motherhood, which was determined by physical development, not age....

The important thing, though, was that the maturity of each young person was judged individually.

In past centuries, women would often die in childbirth, and men often remarried younger women afterwards. Women often married older men, because these were more financially established and able to support them than men their own age.

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "Assessing the Criticisms of Early-Age Latter-Day Saint Marriages"

Craig L. Foster,  Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (February 22, 2019)

Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have accused Joseph Smith and other early Latter-day Saint men of pedophilia because they married teenaged women. Indeed, they have emphatically declared that such marriages were against 19th-century societal norms. However, historians and other experts have repeatedly stated that young people married throughout the 19th-century, and such marriages have been relatively common throughout all of US history. This article examines some of the accusations of early Latter-day Saint pedophilia and places such marriages within the greater historical and social context, illustrating that such marriages were normal and acceptable for their time and place.

Response to claim: 27 - The founders of the Nauvoo Expositor were "men who knew too much"

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

The founders of the Nauvoo Expositor were "men who knew too much."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

This is simply hype on the part of the author.

Question: What caused William Law to apostatize from the Church and turn against Joseph Smith?

William Law in 1836: "I assure you I have found [Joseph Smith] honest and honourable in all our transactions which have been very considerable"

A Canadian, William Law joined the Church in 1836 and moved to Nauvoo in 1839. After having lived near Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, William wrote to a friend:

I have carefully watched his movements since I have been here, and I assure you I have found him honest and honourable in all our transactions which have been very considerable. I believe he is an honest upright man, and as to his follies let who ever is guiltless throw the first stone at him, I shant do it.

William Law in 1844: "I cannot fellowship the abominations which I verily know are practiced by this man [Joseph]"

8 January 1844

William Law released as Second Counselor in the First Presidency; Joseph Smith noted that William “was injuring him by telling evil of him…” William considered his release to be “illegal,” since he had been called “by revelation,” but wrote “I cannot fellowship the abominations which I verily know are practiced by this man [Joseph], consequently I am glad to be free from him."

One of William’s key concerns seems to have revolved around plural marriage

His non-member son, Richard, later recounted:

About the year 1842, he was present at an interview between his father and the Prophet Joseph. The topic under discussion was the doctrine of plural marriage. William Law, with his arms around the neck of the Prophet, was pleading with him to withdraw the doctrine of plural marriage, which he had at that time commenced to teach to some of the brethren, Mr. Law predicting that if Joseph would abandon the doctrine, 'Mormonism' would, in fifty or one hundred years, dominate the Christian world. Mr. Law pleaded for this with Joseph with tears streaming from his eyes. The Prophet was also in tears, but he informed the gentleman that he could not withdraw the doctrine, for God had commanded him to teach it, and condemnation would come upon him if he was not obedient to the commandment.

During the discussion, Joseph was deeply affected. Mr. Richard S. Law says the interview was a most touching one, and was riveted upon his mind in a manner that has kept it fresh and distinct in his memory, as if it had occurred but yesterday.

Mr. Law also says, that he has no doubt that Joseph believed he had received the doctrine of plural marriage from the Lord. The Prophet's manner being exceedingly earnest, so much so, that Mr. Law was convinced that the Prophet was perfectly sincere in his declaration.

William Law was excommunicated

18 April 1844

William Law excommunicated. Austin Cowles of the Nauvoo high council, James Blakeslee, Charles G. Foster, and Francis M. Higbee joined him in leaving the Church, and he was supported in his opposition to Joseph by his brother Wilson. They announced the formation of a ‘reform’ Church based upon Joseph’s teachings up to 1838, with William as president.

William even decided that Joseph Smith’s opposition to Missouri (and the treatment the Saints had received there) was “unChristian"!

The hostile spirit and conduct manifested by Joseph Smith, and many of his associates towards Missouri . . . are decidedly at variance with the true spirit of Christianity, and should not be encouraged by any people, much less by those professing to be the ministers of the gospel of peace.

Williams had financial quarrels with Joseph

William had economic quarrels with Joseph, and was probably too fond of his own financial state, rather than helping the poor of the Church. William and his brother Wilson had bought the higher land on the outskirts of Nauvoo; the Church (through Joseph) owned the land in the river bottom. Joseph declared that new arrivals should purchase lands from the Church (this was in part an effort to help liquidate the Church’s debts), but William objected to this plan as prejudicial to his own financial interests.

Hyrum presented Law and his wife with the revelation on plural marriage, which affected Law greatly

William was probably also troubled by the death of his wife and daughter even after Church leaders had prayed for them. Hyrum presented Law and his wife with the revelation on plural marriage. Long after the fact, William reported his reaction:

Hyrum gave it [the revelation] to me in his office, told me to take it home and read it, and then be careful with it, and bring it back again…[My wife Jane] and I were just turned upside down by it…We did not know what to do.

Law ultimately called Joseph a "demon"

It is not clear whether Jane and William Law were ever sealed. Alexander Neibaur and Hyrum Smith both reported that Joseph told William he could not seal him to Jane because the Lord forbade it; Neibaur indicated that this was because William was “a Adulterous person.” There is no evidence of this other than Neibaur's statement however.

In the clash that followed, William began “casting the first stone,” at Joseph’s supposed failings, and the man which he had once admired as honourable and without cause for complaint became, in his newspaper, a “demon,” a power-mad tyrant, a seducer, and someone who contributed to the early death of young women.

Question: Did Joseph Smith or his associates attempt to reconcile with William Law before he published the Nauvoo Expositor?

Prior to the publication of the Expositor, Hyrum Smith, Almon W. Babbitt, and Sidney Rigdon attempted to reconcile William Law to the Church

William Law announced he would reconcile only under the condition that Joseph publicly state that the practice of polygamy was "from Hell":

I told him [Sidney] that if they wanted peace they could have it on the following conditions, That Joseph Smith would acknowledge publicly that he had taught and practised the doctrine of plurality of wives, that he brought a revelation supporting the doctrine, and that he should own the whole system (revelation and all) to be from Hell.

The Nauvoo Expositor declared that Joseph was "“blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape”

Shortly afterward, on 7 June 1844, the first (and only) edition of the Nauvoo Expositor was published. It detailed Joseph’s practice of plural marriage, and charged him with various crimes, labeling him a “blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape” and “a syncophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history...one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula.”

Response to claim: 27 - "Smith ordered the Nauvoo Legion to storm the newspaper, destroy the press, and burn all extant issues"

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

 Author's quote: Smith ordered the Nauvoo Legion to storm the newspaper, destroy the press, and burn all extant issues.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The Nauvoo City Council, not the Nauvoo Legion, destroyed the newspaper.

Question: How was the decision reached to destroy the Nauvoo Expositor?

Destruction of Expositor

8 June 1844

Nauvoo city council meets regarding the Expositor.

10 June 1844

The city council declares the Expositor a public nuisance and threat to the peace. This was not mere exaggeration; there were sixteen episodes of mob violence against controversial newspapers in Illinois from 1832 to 1867, and so the leaders’ fears of civil unrest were likely well-founded. The city council therefore ordered the press and the paper destroyed.

This was done. The decision to suppress the Expositor, while legal for the day, worsened a tense situation (in the years following the Expositor suppression, similar tactics would be used in 1862, 1893, 1918, and 1927).
Historically, presses which violated community ideas of what was proper were a genuine risk to the public peace. Elijah Lovejoy, an anti-slavery editor of The Saint Louis Observer was killed by a pro-slavery mob in 1837.

Joseph and the city council might well have had memories of what happened in Missouri when some members of the Church became frustrated with the lack of legal redress for their mistreatment by Missouri citizens.
Missouri probably also set the stage for the legal decision to suppress the press. In 1833, the Evening and Morning Star, the LDS paper in Independence, was subject to being "razed to the ground" at the unanimous decision of the mob committee established to drive out the Mormons. The mob's ultimatum later stipulated that the Mormons were not to publish anything before leaving.

The law of the day probably gave Joseph and the council the right to destroy the offending issue; however, since they had also ordered the press and type destroyed, they violated property laws. Joseph later said he would be happy to pay for the damages. Critics are inconsistent when they complain about the Nauvoo city council's decision to suppress the Expositor (an action that was legal) and yet do not also acknowledge that Mormon presses had been destroyed by mobs acting with no legal authority whatever.

Despite the fact that the Expositor's suppression was legal, the destruction of the press appeared high-handed to Church critics, and other newspapers began to call for the Mormons’ expulsion or destruction. Joseph and others were arrested on charges of “riot.”

Question: Why did the Nauvoo City Council feel it was necessary to destroy the Nauvoo Expositor?

One member recorded that Joseph told him that the destruction of the press was necessary for the Saints’ safety

It is claimed that Joseph "could not allow the Expositor to publish the secret international negotiations masterminded by Mormonism’s earthly king."

The reality was that the Joseph and the City Council were concerned that the paper would cause turmoil among the Saints.

One member stated,

Brother Joseph called a meeting at his own house and told us that God showed to him in an open vision in daylight [meaning that this was not something he had just conjured up in dreams of the night] that if he did not destroy that printing press that it would cause the blood of the Saints to flow in the streets and by this was that evil destroyed.

Joseph foresaw his own death as a result of the turmoil that was already occurring

Given Joseph’s numerous presentiments of his own death, it may well be that he knowingly chose this course of action to spare the members’ lives at the cost of his own. Said Joseph to Elizabeth Rollins:

I must seal my testimony with my blood.

And later:

Some has supposed that Br Joseph Could not die but this is a mistake it is true their has been times when I have had the promise of my life to accomplish such & such things, but having accomplish those things I have not at present any lease of my life I am as liable to die as other men.

Response to claim: 27 - The author claims that "the constitutional defenders of the First Amendment" called for Joseph Smith's arrest after the destruction of the Expositor

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that "the constitutional defenders of the First Amendment" called for Joseph Smith's arrest after the destruction of the Expositor.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The First Amendment did not apply to local or state governments until after the Civil War.

Question: Was the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor legal?

The destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor led directly to the murder of Joseph and Hyrum

It is claimed by one critic of the Church that Joseph "could not allow the Expositor to publish the secret international negotiations masterminded by Mormonism’s earthly king." Another claimed that "When the Laws (with others) purchased a printing press in an attempt to hold Joseph Smith accountable for his polygamy (which he was denying publicly), Joseph ordered the destruction of the printing press, which was both a violation of the 1st Amendment, and which ultimately led to Joseph’s assassination."

The Expositor incident led directly to the murder of Joseph and Hyrum, but it was preceded by a long period of non-Mormon distrust of Joseph Smith, and attempts to extradite him on questionable basis.

The destruction of the Expositor issue was legal; it was not legal to have destroyed the type, but this was a civil matter, not a criminal one, and one for which Joseph was willing to pay a fine if imposed.

Joseph seems to have believed—or, his followers believed after his death—that the decision, while 'unwise' for Joseph, may have been in the Saints' interest to have Joseph killed. For a time, this diffused much of the tension and may have prevented an outbreak of generalized violence against the Saints, as occurred in Missouri.

The destruction of the first issue was legal, but it was not legal to destroy the printer's type

It is claimed that "When the Laws (with others) purchased a printing press in an attempt to hold Joseph Smith accountable for his polygamy (which he was denying publicly), Joseph ordered the destruction of the printing press, which was both a violation of the 1st Amendment, and which ultimately led to Joseph’s assassination."

The destruction of the Expositor issue (i.e., the paper itself) was legal; it was not legal to have destroyed the type, but this was a civil matter, not a criminal one, and one for which Joseph was willing to pay a fine if imposed.

Joseph did not unilaterally order the action against the Expositor—it was the Nauvoo City Council (which included non-Mormons) which reached the unanimous decision. Having reached that decision, Joseph Smith then issued an order, as mayor, to carry out the Council's decision. As described in the Church's 2011 Priesthood/Relief Society manual:

On June 10, 1844, Joseph Smith, who was the mayor of Nauvoo, and the Nauvoo city council ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor and the press on which it was printed.

History of the Church also describes this event :

I [Joseph Smith] immediately ordered the Marshal to destroy it [the Nauvoo Expositor] without delay, and at the same time issued an order to Jonathan Dunham, acting Major-General of the Nauvoo Legion, to assist the Marshal with the Legion, if called upon so to do."

The First Amendment is irrelevant to this discussion. In 1844, the First Amendment only applied to federal law; it had no application to state or local law until the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War.

Response to claim: 28 - Joseph sent orders to the Nauvoo Legion from Carthage Jail to come and free him

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

Joseph sent orders to the Nauvoo Legion from Carthage Jail to come and free him.

Author's sources:

1. No source cited, but it is probably Brodie. See Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 392. ( Index of claims ).

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

This claim is false. The evidence indicates that Joseph ordered the Nauvoo Legion to stay in Nauvoo.

Question: Did Joseph order Jonathan Dunham, head of the Nauvoo legion, to rescue him?

There is little good evidence from the extant documents that Joseph attempted to have the Nauvoo Legion rescue him

Fawn Brodie claimed that Joseph Smith was panicking at Carthage Jail, and wrote an order to Jonathan Dunham (head of the Nauvoo legion), telling him to attack the jail and "save him at all costs"

There is little good evidence from the extant documents that Joseph attempted to have the Nauvoo Legion rescue him. By contrast, he repeatedly ordered the militia to stay home and his followers to avoid assembling. He repeatedly expressed resignation as to his fate, and just prior to his martyrdom was seeking to add more legal help to his hearing two days distant—a strange choice if he expected to be liberated by the militia.

The entire tale sounds more like gossip or grumbling among a few who felt that the Mormons militia could have rescued Joseph if given the chance

That Dunham would receive orders from Joseph and refuse to follow them seems incredible. It would also be strange for Stout to be the only primary source to learn of such orders. Why would Dunham tell anyone that he had refused an order from the prophet? Why would he tell Stout, a fierce supporter of Joseph? Why did others not hear of this and report it? Why was Dunham not blamed by other LDS members later?

Stenhouse tells the story, and claims that the order was found discarded on the ground—again, this seems incredible. Why would Dunham dispose of such an incriminating bit of evidence so carelessly? If it was found, why did Brigham Young or other Church leaders never hear of, mention, or save it? The entire tale sounds more like gossip or grumbling among a few who felt that the Mormons militia could have rescued Joseph if given the chance.

Dunham's death was reported in William Clayton's diary as follows:

Daniel Spencer has returned from the West. He brings word that Brother Jonathan Dunham died of a fever.

Thus, the attribution of Dunham's death to suicide occurs later. Even if the suicide claim is accepted, Oliver Huntington's witness says that it was because Dunham felt guilty for being unable to fortify Nauvoo adequately before Joseph went to Carthage for the last time.

The weight of evidence cannot, at present, sustain the claim that Joseph commanded the Nauvoo Legion to come rescue him. Errors, miscitation of sources, and typographical problems have further clouded this issue.

The critics and their sources: There are two basic 'streams' of this theory

The first derives from Fawn Brodie (1945):

Other authors have followed Brodie. Abanes (One Nation Under Gods), for example, merely quotes Brodie as his source. Denton simply repeats the claim without acknowledging Brodie as the source.

Brodie's evidence derives from two sources:

• Allen J. Stout, manuscript journal, 1815-89, p. 13.
• T.B.H. Stenhouse, Rocky Mountain Saints: a full and complete history of the Mormons, from the first vision of Joseph Smith to the last courtship of Brigham Young (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1873), 164n..

Brodie says that Stout's story "is confirmed" by Stenhouse, but Stenhouse mentions no names.

New wrinkle: Hofmann forgeries

The second evidential stream draws on the first, but adds a new wrinkle. This wrinkle is one of the Hofmann forgeries. Mark Hofmann forged the supposed letter from Joseph to Dunham, and it was published in a collection of Joseph's personal writings before the forgery was discovered.

Despite the fact that the document is a forgery, some authors have continued to use it. For example, D. Michael Quinn used it as evidence as late as 1994, and cites the Jessee transcript of the letter (cited above):

The morning of 27 July, Smith sent an order (in his own handwriting) to Major-General Jonathan Dunham to lead the Nauvoo Legion in a military attack on Carthage "immediately" to free the prisoners. Dunham realized that such an assault by the Nauvoo Legion would result in two blood baths—one in Carthage and another when anti-Mormons (and probably the Illinois militia) retaliated by laying siege to Nauvoo for insurrection. To avoid civil war and the destruction of Nauvoo's population, Dunham refused to obey the order and did not notify Smith of his decision. One of his lieutenants, a former Danite, later complained that Dunham "did not let a single mortal know that he had received such orders."

• Citing: "Joseph Smith to Jonathan Dunham, 27 June 1844, in Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, xxv, 616-17; History of the Church, 6:529. Volume 6 link referred to this order but neither quoted nor summarized it....Allen J. Stout journal, 13; also T. B. H. Stenhouse, The Rocky Mountain Saints...,164n, told the incident without naming Dunham."

</blockquote>

There is no mention in History of the Church that Joseph wrote a letter to Dunham urging him to come to their rescue

We note too that the History of the Church citation is also in error; Quinn transposed two numbers; the correct citation is 6:592. Despite this claim, there is no mention in History of the Church that Joseph wrote a letter to Dunham urging him to come to their rescue. Joseph wrote several known letters to Dunham, none of which supports Quinn's claim. The History of the Church entry reads:

"Willard Richards made copies of the orders of Joseph Smith as Mayor to Marshal John P. Greene, and as Lieut.-General to Major-General Jonathan Dunham."

These are clearly the letters referred to earlier in the History of the Church (see 6:493), which say nothing about rescuing the prisoners at Carthage.

Quinn goes on to claim that:

However, another former Danite took self-inflicted retribution for the death of Joseph Smith. When Nauvoo Mormons learned that Jonathan Dunham had ignored the prophet's direct order to lead the Nauvoo Legion in a rescue at Carthage Jail, some called him a "coward and traitor." Others dismissed him as a "fool and idiot."....

He here uses the same citation as before: the Jesse volume, with its forged Hofmann document.

Quinn's retraction and the error's perpetuation

In 1995, Quinn wrote a letter in which he acknowledged his reference to the forged document and included and explanation:

While vacationing in California during January, I received a telephone call informing me that my newly published book Mormon Hierarchy had cited a Hoffman-forged letter to Jonathan Dunham in the source notes. I'll spare you my immediate reaction, but it was stronger than "Oh hell!"....

The only parts of the Dunham letter I used were the variant date (a day later than History of the Church) and the word "immediately," but during my rushed revision of this passage I mistyped the month in my narrative. I should have caught my misstatement that Joseph Smith wrote these orders a month after his June death, but I never saw that error. Nor did I see the typographical error of transposing the page-number citation in History of the Church for the letter.

Quinn continues to insist on his misreading of the History of the Church entry (see discussion above), only correcting his typographical error in the citation (6:592 instead of 6:529).

Quinn ignores that he also claimed (without evidence save from the forgery) that the writing was "in his [Joseph's] own handwriting."

Errata for Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith--available by 1986-1987. See Bennett, "Hofmann's last bomb."

Quinn went on to claim that he could only locate this information in Silitoe and Roberts' 1988 volume Salamander. While the information is available in Salamander (see pp. 110, 132, 282, 547, and plate 37), this was not the only source available. The letter's forged status was also discussed in Dialogue 21/4 (Winter 1988): 170. BYU Studies included a long list of forged documents and other material related to the Hofmann forgeries in 1989, including the Dunham letter.. Curtis Bench produced an errata sheet for Dean Jesse's book Personal Writings of Joseph Smith in 1986-1987.

Quinn made corrections for the 1997 printing of Origins of Power. However, his publisher issued the New Mormon Studies CD-ROM in 1998, but still included Quinn's erroneous 1994 version in this digital product.

Quinn: distorting another source

Quinn tries to provide extra proof by writing that:

Later general authority Seymour B. Young (who had survived the Haun's Mill massacre) recorded a different story he learned from another former Danite. Ever since the martyrdom, Dunham "seemed to grieve over the matter" of not rescuing the prisoners at Carthage, and the anniversary of the prophet's death pushed him into despair. A month later he persuaded "a friendly Indian" (Dana) "to kill and bury him."

For this claim, Quinn appeals again to Stenhouse (who, as noted above, mentioned no names and could have had no personal knowledge of these events), and to an Oliver B. Huntington statement, in Seymour B. Young diary, 23 May 1903, LDS archives. But, this supposed confirmation turns out to be nothing of the sort. Dean Jessee wrote, in a review of Quinn's work that

In his treatment of Joseph Smith's death, Quinn refers to the statement by Allen Stout that Joseph, in Carthage Jail, had ordered Jonathan Dunham, commander of the Nauvoo Legion, to bring the legion and rescue him; and that Dunham did not respond (p. 141). Quinn quotes Seymour Young's 1903 conversation with Oliver Huntington, reporting that Dunham "seemed to grieve over the matter" of failing to rescue Joseph; depressed, Dunham persuaded a friendly Indian to kill and bury him (pp. 179-80). But Quinn has altered the Young conversation with Huntington to support Stout's story that Joseph had sent for the Nauvoo Legion. According to Young, Huntington informed him that, in the spring of 1844, Joseph told Dunham to fortify Nauvoo so the Saints could make a stand against their enemies. Dunham's depression after the martyrdom was over his failure to complete the fortification; he felt that had he done so, the Prophet might not have had to go to Carthage in the first place.

Jessee makes no mention of Quinn's further difficulties in using the forged Hofmann document years after its status as a fraud was revealed. Thus, the case for Joseph's order to Dunham rests only on Stout's account. Stenhouse mentions the story, but he was in England at the time. He could have had no independent confirmation.

This does not stop Quinn from later, in his timeline, acting as if his entire scenario is well-proven:

28 July. Jonathan Dunham, despondent about disobeying Smith's orders to rescue him from jail, commits suicide. Later disclosures indicate that Dunham, who was a captain of Nauvoo's police, major-general of the Nauvoo Legion, and a Council of Fifty member, accomplished the suicide by asking a native American friend (Lewis Dana, fellow member of the Fifty) to "kill and bury him."

No references are provided, a deficiency which reviewers have noted.

Joseph's orders to Dunham

June 17, 1844: Joseph issued three letters of instruction which impacted Dunham. The first was to John P. Greene, marshal of the city:

SIR.—Complaint having been made to me on oath that a mob is collecting at sundry points to make an attack on this city, you will therefore take such measures as shall be necessary to preserve the peace of said city according to the provisions of the charter and the laws of the state; and with the police and the Legion, see that no violent set is committed. General Dunham is hereby instructed to act with the Marshal in keeping the peace, according to law.

The second two letters addressed Dunham directly:

Complaint having been made on oath that a mob is preparing to make an attack upon this city and citizens of Nauvoo, and having directed the Marshal to keep the peace, you are hereby commanded to order the Nauvoo Legion to be in readiness to assist said Marshal in keeping the peace, and doing whatever may be necessary to preserve the dignity of the state and city....

You are hereby instructed to execute all orders of the Marshal, and perform all services with as little noise and confusion as possible, and take every precaution to prevent groups of citizens, &c., from gathering on the bank of the river, on the landing of boats or otherwise, and allay every cause and pretext of excitement as well as suspicion, and let your operations be efficient and decided.

On June 18, 1844 Joseph declared martial law

On the 20th Joseph said, "I went with my staff and Major-General Dunham to the prairie, to view the situation of the ground, and to devise plans for the defense of the city, and select the proper locations to meet the mob, and made arrangements for provisions for the city, instructing my agent to pledge my farms for the purpose." On the evening of the 22nd, Dunham was instructed to have the legion cohorts use entrenching tools to prepare the city's defense.

On June 22, 1844 Joseph instructed Dunham by letter to prepare the city for defense

Joseph wrote to Dunham,

You will proceed without delay, with the assistance of the Nauvoo Legion, to prepare the background [Eastern part] of said city for defense against an invasion by mobs, cause the Legion to be furnished with tents, and make your encampment in the vicinity of your labor.

On June 24, 1844 Joseph instructed Dunham to comply with the governor's order for the Nauvoo Legion to return state arms

Joseph instructed Dunham to comply with the governor's order for the Nauvoo Legion to return state arms. The next day, Joseph and Hyrum surrendered themselves and went to Carthage.

Joseph returned to surrender himself to the Illinois governor, Thomas Ford, after being appealed to by Emma and others

Joseph was safely away in Iowa with Hyrum. He returned to surrender himself to the Illinois governor, Thomas Ford, after being appealed to by Emma and others. Emma reported that Joseph said, "I will die before I will be called a coward."

Joseph also remarked that "If my life is of no value to my friends [those in Nauvoo who were urging him to return for fear of the mob] it is of none to myself....if they had let me alone there would have been no bloodshed but now I expect to be butchered. Hyrum likewise remarked that "We had better go back and die like men." And, on the way out of Nauvoo to Carthage, Joseph was reported to say, "I go like a lamb to the slaughter."

Joseph's attitude in Carthage

On 25 June, Joseph wrote a letter to Emma from Carthage

Joseph wrote,

There was a little mutiny among the "Carthage Greys"; but I think the Gov. has & will succeed in enforcing the laws. I do hope the people of Nauvoo will continue placid pacific & prayerful.

N.B. Governor Ford has just concluded to send some of his malitia to Nauvoo to protect the citizens, & I wish that I they may be kindly treated. They will co-ope=rate with the police to keep the peace of the city The Governors orders will be read in hearing of the police & officers of the Legion, as I suppose.

Joseph hopes Mormons will remain "placid, pacific, and prayerful." He notes that the state militia will keep peace in Nauvoo—a sure obstacle to any attempt to call out the militia.

Joseph wrote to Emma, from Carthage (8:20 am) on 27 June 1844 asked her to tell Dunham to instruct people to stay home

...I want you to tell Bro Dunham to instruct the people to stay at home and attend to their own business and let there be no groups or gathering together unless by permission of the Gov— they are called together to receive communications from the Gov— which would please our people, but let the Gov. direct. —Bro Dunham of course, will obey the orders of the Government officers, and render them the assistance they require....I am very much resigned to my lot knowing I am Justified and have done the best that could be done give my love to the children

Joseph is here forbidding assembly of the people, a necessary prelude to any attempt to rescue him or Hyrum.

Joseph's last letter to was to lawyer Orville H. Browning on 27 June 1844

Joseph's last known letter was to an attorney he wished to add to his legal defense:

Myself and brother Hyrum are in Jail on [a] charge of Treason, to come up for examination on Saturday morning 29th inst. and we request your professional services at that time, on our defence without fail....P.S. There is no ground of action, for we have not been guilty of any crime; neither is there any just cause of suspicion against us when facts are shown but certain circumstances make your attendance very necessary.

Response to claim: 28 - The author claims that "lore had it" that Joseph gave the Masonic distress signal "before calling out: 'Oh Lord my God. Is there no help for the widow's son?"

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that "lore had it" that Joseph gave the Masonic distress signal "before calling out: 'Oh Lord my God. Is there no help for the widow's son?"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

This is very sloppy research. Despite citing so many sources, the author gets the history wrong. There is no record of Joseph saying more than "Oh Lord, my God." In addition, the author states that Joseph gave the Masonic distress signal before calling out this phrase. In reality, the full phrase "Oh Lord my God. Is there no help for the widow's son" is the Masonic distress signal!

Response to claim: 29 - The author claims that Joseph's death was "second in importance only to that of Jesus Christ"

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Joseph's death was "second in importance only to that of Jesus Christ."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

This is nonsense.

Response to claim: 29 - Allen J. Stout's journal says that he will avenge Joseph's blood to the fourth generation

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

Allen J. Stout's journal says that he will avenge Joseph's blood to the fourth generation.

Author's sources:

1. Stout journal, June 28, 1844.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

From the cited source:

"Their dead bodies were brought to Nauvoo where I saw their beloved forms reposing in the arms of death, which gave me such feelings as I am not able to describe. But I there and then resolved in my mind that I would never let an opportunity slip unimproved of avenging their blood upon the head of the enemies of the Church of Jesus Christ. I felt as though I could not live. I knew not how to contain myself, and when I see one of the men who persuaded them to give up to be tried, I feel like cutting their throats. And I hope to live to avenge their blood, but if I do not, I will teach my children to never cease to try to avenge their blood and then their children and children's children to the fourth generation as long as there is one descendant of the murderers upon the earth." off-site

Stout vows vengeance only on "the murderers" and their kin. Despite his anger at those who had encouraged Joseph and Hyrum to surrender, he does not take action against them. The relevance of this to the Mountain Meadows Massacre is, then, not clear.

Response to claim: 29 - D. Michael Quinn said that Joseph "failed to clarify for the highest leadership of the church the precise method of succession God intended"

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

D. Michael Quinn said that Joseph "failed to clarify for the highest leadership of the church the precise method of succession God intended."

Author's sources:

1. D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 143.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

There were clear indications that Brigham Young would be Joseph's successor.

FAIR Answers Wiki Table of Contents

Articles about Joseph Smith

Life and Character	Status in Latter-day Saint belief Joseph Smith's family as trustworthy and hard-working Education Trustworthiness The Hurlbut affidavits Alleged narcissism Money digging Folk magic or the occult The Word of Wisdom
Revelations and the Church	Use of seer stones as a youth First Vision Book of Mormon Joseph Smith's inspired revision of the Bible The restoration of the priesthood Personages who appeared to Joseph Smith
Prophetic Statements	The U.S. Civil War Rocky Mountain prophecy The White Horse prophecy Alleged false prophecies of Joseph Smith
Society	Legal issues 1826 trial Creation of the Kirtland Safety Society Failure of the Kirtland Safety Society Campaign for President of the United States
Plural marriage (polygamy)	Notable plural wives: Fanny Alger Helen Mar Kimball Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde
Death	The Nauvoo Expositor Events surrounding the death of Joseph Smith Firing a gun at Carthage Jail Qualification as a martyr 1844 Succession to Joseph Smith

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/American Massacre/Chapter 3

• Who were possible successors to Joseph Smith?
• What happened on August 8, 1844?
• How do we know the Quorum of the Twelve were the divinely appointed successors?
• Which groups dissented from leadership of the Quorum of the Twelve?
• Where can I learn more about the 1844 succession?

</onlyinclude> Video published by the Church History Department.

Who were possible successors to Joseph Smith?

In the early 1800s, God called Joseph Smith to restore the true Church of Christ and to serve as its first leader (see Doctrine and Covenants 20:2). God also provided a plan of succession: that the next Church leader would be appointed by Joseph Smith and would not serve until after Joseph was gone (see Doctrine and Covenants 43:3–4). Before he died, Joseph Smith appointed his successor, but "he had not announced a clear plan for succession [to Church members]. . . . One Church member living near Nauvoo said he heard people advocating for several potential leaders."

Some individuals who were put forth as possible successors included:

• Brigham Young. As President of the Quorum of the Twelve, Brigham Young was a leading figure among the Latter-day Saints, and had been so since the Twelve's mission to England in 1840. Further, the Quorum of the Twelve had risen in prominence from their establishment in 1835 until Joseph's death in 1844, and since 1841 they had "[stood] in their place next to the First Presidency."

• Sidney Rigdon. As First Counselor in the First Presidency, Sidney Rigdon had been a leading figure among the Latter-day Saints almost since the Church's founding. He had been Joseph's counselor since the First Presidency was organized in 1832. However, by the time of Joseph's death in 1844, Sidney had fallen out of favor with Joseph and many of the Latter-day Saints.

• James Strang. Having been baptized into the Church around February 1844, James Strang was a recent convert to the Church. He had been baptized in Nauvoo but very soon left for Wisconsin, where there were many Church members, either living or working for lumber. He was relatively unknown to Church members outside of his branch in Wisconsin.

• William Marks. As president of the Nauvoo Stake, William Marks was a leading figure among the Saints in Nauvoo. He had served as president since the stake was organized in 1839. He was also close friend to Emma Smith and agreed with her views on many important aspects of Church teachings, including opposing plural marriage.

• Joseph Smith III. As the oldest living son of Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith III was a possible successor because of lineage. However, at only 11 years old when Joseph died, Joseph III was not widely considered as an immediate successor but rather as someone who might eventually become the Church's leader.

Notes

[Back to top]

What happened on August 8, 1844?

Almost immediately after Joseph Smith's death on June 27, 1844, conflict arose among local Church leaders and others about who would succeed Joseph Smith. Throughout July 1844 local leaders met together and with Emma Smith to discuss possible succession options. They agreed to wait to make a decision until a majority of the Twelve Apostles returned to Nauvoo. (The Twelve had been out on missions for Joseph Smith's campaign for President of the United States of America.) However, Sidney Rigdon (who had also been away from Nauvoo for the campaign) returned to Nauvoo on August 3 and immediately began advocating that the Saints appoint him as Joseph's successor. Sidney gained William Marks as a supporter, and William appointed a general assembly of the Church for August 8 to decide the question who would succeed Joseph Smith. Two days before the assembly, Brigham Young and several of the Twelve Apostles returned to Nauvoo, so that a majority of the Quorum was now in Nauvoo.

On August 8, Church members met to decide who should lead the Church. In a morning meeting, Sidney Rigdon gave an impassioned speech that the authority to lead the Church was still on the earth and that he would be the spokesman for Joseph Smith. Brigham Young arose and lamented that there was such a hurry to appoint a successor but that he would call a meeting of priesthood quorums and general membership that afternoon to resolve the issue. When the Saints gathered in the afternoon, Brigham Young and others addressed the congregation, explaining the authority of the Twelve Apostles to lead the Church since Joseph had died.

Many reported that, in both the morning and afternoon meetings, "Brigham sounded and appeared remarkably like Joseph Smith; others simply say that the 'mantle of Joseph' or the 'mantle of the prophets' rested on Brigham Young; and others state that they were given a witness 'by the spirit' that Brigham was to lead the Church." One hundred and twenty-nine people bore witness of this manifestation. Just a few are included here:

• Henry and Catherine Brooke, 15 November 1844: "The loss of Br. Joseph and Hyrum has been greatly felt but we have the twelve apostles to preside in their stead. Br. Brigham Young is president of the twelve and stands as prophet, seer, and revelator to the Church. He is an excellent man, and favours Br. Joseph, both in person, and manner of speaking, more than any person ever you saw looks like another."

• Howard Egan, 8 December 1844: "Jesse C. Little quoted Howard Egan’s words in his letter to Brigham Young dated December 8, 1844: 'I rec[eive]d a Letter from Bro Egan at the time of the Conference he said if a man had been blinded he would hardly have known if it were not Joseph.'"

• Wilford Woodruff, February 1845: "Met in a special conference, all the quorums, authorities, and members of the Church, that could assemble in Nauvoo. They were addressed by elder Brigham Young, the president of the quorum of the twelve. It was evident to the Saints that the mantle of Joseph had fallen upon him."

Notes

[Back to top]

How do we know the Quorum of the Twelve were the divinely appointed successors?

These divine witnesses helped Church members to know that Brigham Young and the Twelve Apostles had been given the authority to lead the Church after Joseph died. Orson Hyde wrote that Joseph, shortly before his death, met with the Twelve to confer upon them keys and authority and declared, "Upon the shoulders of the Twelve must the responsibility of leading this church hence forth rest until you shall appoint others to succeed you." Other Apostles shared similar testimonies of Joseph conferring upon them the authority to lead the Church:

• Parley P. Pratt: Said [Joseph], ‘I know not why; but for some reason I am constrained to hasten my preparations, and to confer upon the Twelve all the ordinances, keys, covenants, endowments, and sealing ordinances of the priesthood, and so set before them a pattern in all things pertaining to the sanctuary [the temple] and the endowment therein.’ Having done this, he rejoiced exceedingly; for, said he, the Lord is about to lay the burden on your shoulders and let me rest awhile."

• Wilford Woodruff: "In his [Joseph's] remarks to us he said: ‘I have had sealed upon my head every key, every power, every principle of life and salvation that God has ever given to any man who ever lived upon the face of the earth. And these principles and this Priesthood and power belong to this great and last dispensation which the God of Heaven has set His hand to establish in the earth. Now,’ said he, addressing the Twelve, ‘I have sealed upon your heads every key, every power, and every principle which the Lord has sealed upon my head.’ . . . After addressing us in this manner he said: ‘I tell you, the burden of this kingdom now rests upon your shoulders; you have got to bear it off in all the world, and if you don’t do it you will be damned.’”

• Brigham Young: "Joseph conferred upon our heads all the keys and powers belonging to the Apostleship which he himself held before he was taken away, and no man or set of men can get between Joseph and the Twelve in this world or in the world to come. How often has Joseph said to the Twelve, ‘I have laid the foundation and you must build thereon, for upon your shoulders the kingdom rests.’"

Other individuals also added their testimony that the keys and authority to lead the Church were with the Twelve. Recounting his experience of the August 8 meetings, Joseph Fielding wrote, "The Saints soon began to see how things were and that the 12 must now hold the Keys of Power and Authority according to the Revelation which says the 12 are equal with the first Presidency . . . it was also shewn that Joseph had told the 12 after he had instructed them in all things that on them would rest the Responsibility and the Care of the Church in Case he should be taken away." Benjamin F. Johnson later recalled, "Of Brigham Young as President of the Church I will again bear this as a faithful Testimony that I do know and bear Record. that upon the head of Brigham Young as Chief with the Apostleship in full was by the voice of the prophet Joseph in in [sic] my hearing laid the full Responsability of bearing of the kingdom of God to all the world."

By studying the testimonies and experiences of those who were present in 1844, and then seeking our own testimony, we can also know that Brigham Young was the divinely authorized successor to Joseph Smith.

Notes

[Back to top]

Which groups dissented from leadership of the Quorum of the Twelve?

Not all of the Saints accepted the Twelve as the divinely authorized successors to Joseph Smith. In the time immediately after the Twelve assumed leadership, many individuals (including Sidney Rigdon, James Strang, and others) led groups of dissenting Saints, though these movements quickly disbanded. Later, Joseph Smith III, with the assistant of William Marks, assumed leadership of another group of dissenting Saints. This movement endured and became known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (now called the Community of Christ).

Some Saints believed that the Church led by Brigham Young would eventually be led by Joseph Smith III, or another of Joseph Smith Jr.'s sons. Though Brigham Young himself hoped that Joseph's sons would one day become leaders in the Church, he acknowledged they had to do so "if that person conformed to the revelation of God and received that office humbly through the constituted apostolic authority that directed it at present."

Video published by Saints Unscripted.

Notes

[Back to top]

Where can I learn more about the 1844 succession?

• "Succession of Church Leadership," Church History Topics in Gospel Library.

• Lynne W. Jorgensen, "The Mantle of the Prophet Joseph Passes to Brother Brigham: One Hundred Twenty-nine Testimonies of a Collective Spiritual Witness," and "Documents of Testimonies of the Mantle Experience," in John W. Welch, ed., Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844 (Second Edition) (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press).

• "Special Meeting," Times and Seasons 5:16 (September 2, 1844).

• "Trial of Elder Rigdon," Times and Seaons 5:17 (September 15, 1844) and "Continuation of Elder Rigdon's Trial," Times and Seasons 5:18 (October 1, 1844).

• Historical introduction to and document of "Appendix 3: Orson Hyde, Statement about Quorum of the Twelve, circa Late March 1845," josephsmithpapers.org.

• The section "Before his death, Joseph Smith conferred upon the Twelve Apostles every priesthood key and power that the Lord had sealed upon him", in "Chapter 46: The Martyrdom: The Prophet Seals His Testimony with His Blood," Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith.

• D. Michael Quinn, "The Mormon Succession Crisis of 1844," BYU Studies 16:2.

• Ronald W. Walker, "Six Days in August: Brigham Young and the Succession Crisis of 1844," in David J. Whittaker and Arnold K. Garr, eds., A Firm Foundation: Church Organization and Administration (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011).

[Back to top]

Response to claim: 30 - Sidney Rigdon is claimed to have "recently apostatized over Smith's attempted seduction of his daughter in to a polygamous marriage"

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

Sidney Rigdon is claimed to have "recently apostatized over Smith's attempted seduction of his daughter in to a polygamous marriage."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

Sidney had not apostatized. He remained first counselor in the First Presidency. The details regarding Joseph's interaction with Nancy Rigdon vary, depending upon the source.

Nancy Rigdon and Plural Marriage

Summary: Even more complex than the Sarah Pratt episode, Sidney Rigdon's daughter Nancy was approached by Joseph Smith regarding plural marriage.

Jump to Subtopic:

• Nancy Rigdon

Response to claim: 31 - Sidney Rigdon, "Knowing he could not compete with Smith as a seer..."

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

 Author's quote: Knowing he could not compete with Smith as a seer...

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Stenhouse (the author's source) did not become a member of the Church until after Joseph's death, and he joined the Church in England. He was in no position at all to know Sidney's thoughts or capabilities in the matter. Sidney's later post-Mormon religious activities show him to be quite convinced that he can deliver oracles from God as Joseph did.

Response to claim: 32 - The temple is claimed to have "placed under the most sacred obligations to avenge the blood of the Prophet, whenever an opportunity offered, and to teach their children to do the same"

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

The temple is claimed to have "placed under the most sacred obligations to avenge the blood of the Prophet, whenever an opportunity offered, and to teach their children to do the same."

Author's sources:

1. John D. Lee in Henrie, 147.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

John D. Lee's biography was edited and published after his death by his lawyer, and it suspect.

Question: Was there an oath in a former version of the Mormon temple endowment that required vengeance upon the government of the United States?

It is likely that there was an oath that asked members to pray that God would avenge the blood of the prophets

Until 1927 the temple endowment very likely contained such an oath. The exact wording is not entirely clear, but it appears that it did not call on the Saints themselves to take vengeance on the United States, but that they would continue to pray that God himself might avenge the blood of the prophets.

Although the Oath of Vengeance contains no curses like those in the imprecatory psalms, like the psalmists, the Saints apparently had the wisdom to take directly to God their strong feelings in response to the injustices they had been dealt. By doing so, they turned over to Him the responsibility for both justice and healing.

In nearly every anti-Mormon discussion of the temple, critics raise the issue of the "oath of vengeance" that existed during the 19th century and very early 20th century. These critics often misstate the nature of the oath and try to use its presence in the early temple endowment as evidence that the LDS temple ceremonies are ungodly, violent, and immoral.

The leaders of the Church have modified the endowment from time to time. Prior to changes made in 1927, there was an oath to pray for the Lord's vengeance on those who murdered the prophets. In their sworn testimonies and temple exposes, apostates gave conflicting accounts on who was to do the actual avenging: the Lord or the Saints themselves. Surveying Mormon history for teachings about of vengeance can add perspective and help evaluate which possibility is more likely.

During the Missouri conflict, the Saints were instructed through revelation to petition for governmental redress for the outrages they suffered

In 1833, the Mormons were driven out of Jackson County, Missouri, in part due to anti-slavery sentiments that differed from the more established settlers. Through revelation, the Saints were instructed to petition for governmental redress for the outrages they suffered. The Saints were expected to be pacifists, but only up to a point. D&C 98:23-31:

Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded; But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you. And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundredfold. And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it patiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold; And these three testimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall not be blotted out. And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation. And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands; And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation. Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.

The use of violence was condoned only in cases of self-defense or after the Lord had delivered up a previously warned enemy in the Saints hands

Even then mercy towards enemies was encouraged and indications are that the Lord can fight his own battles (see v. 37) to extract his vengeance on the wicked. Note the repeated references to third and fourth generations of children that is added for rhetorical effect despite the impracticality of a single enemy being a menace for the encompassing time span.

The earliest known oath of vengeance in a Mormon temple appears to have been introduced by Joseph Smith in Kirtland

The earliest known oath of vengeance in a Mormon temple appears to have been introduced by Joseph Smith spontaneously at the Kirtland dedication on March 30, 1836:

The seventies are at liberty to go to Zion if they please or go wheresoever they will and preach the gospel and let the redemption of Zion be our object, and strive to affect it by sending up all the strength of the Lords house whereever we find them, and I want to enter into the following covenant, that if any more of our brethren are slain or driven from their lands in Missouri by the mob that we will give ourselves no rest until we are avenged of our enimies to the uttermost, this covenant was sealed unanimously by a hosanna and Amen.

The Mormons used military force to defend themselves in Missouri, but eventually they were driven out after an exterminating order was issued against them by governor Boggs. Further petitions for redress in Missouri were met with rejection. Martin van Buren remarked "Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you." Enemies in Missouri, including the next governor, conspired to kidnap Joseph in Illinois and bring him to Missouri to face trumped up charges.

Nauvoo Developments: Wilford Woodruff later situated the temple instruction in praying for the Lord's biblical vengeance of blood of the prophets

Perhaps anticipating his death, Joseph met often with apostles and other close associates to restore the temple endowment prior to the completion of the Nauvoo temple. Wilford Woodruff, later situated the temple instruction in praying for the Lord's biblical vengeance of blood of the prophets as follows:

I have already said that there is nothing [antagonistic to the government in the Mormon endowments] of that kind in any part or phase of Mormonism. I ought to know about that as I am one of the oldest members of the church. A good deal is being made of a form of prayer based upon two verses in the sixth chapter of the revelations of St. John as contained in the New Testament. It relates to praying that God might avenge the blood of the prophets. An attempt has, I see, been made to connect this with avenging the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith and to have reference to this nation. It can have no such application as the endowments were given long before the death of Joseph and Hyrum and have not been changed. This nation and government has never been charged by the Mormon people with the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. As it is well known the murder was the act of the local mob disguised.

Recent generations of Latter-day Saints, who haven't experienced mob violence, may be surprised at or uncomfortable with such oaths

Recent generations of Latter-day Saints, who haven't experienced mob violence, kidnapping attempts, and death threats, may be surprised at or uncomfortable with the feelings of many earlier saints who were praying for justice instead of praying for their enemies. But we live in kinder, gentler times; and nineteenth-century Mormons—especially those who came out of Nauvoo—saw the hand of God whenever their persecutors suffered misfortune, a feeling common to most powerless, persecuted minority groups.

After Joseph Smith's death, his closest friends continued to meet after his death. This group met to test revelation ("try all things"), pray for the healing of sick members, pray for the success of church projects, and pray for deliverance from their enemies. Heber C. Kimball recalled that after Joseph's death the prayer circle met and prayed for God's vengeance.

Summarizing Willard Richards' activities immediately after the martyrdom, historian Claire Noall wrote:

True, in this [1850] speech Richards finally denounced the actual murderers; but when notifying the Church of Joseph Smith's death at Carthage jail, he wrote to Nauvoo that the people of Carthage expected the Mormons to rise, but he had "promised them no." The next day from the steps of the Prophet's home, he reminded his people that he had pledged his word and his honor for their peaceful conduct. And when writing the news of Smith's death to Brigham Young then near Boston, Willard Richards said the blood of martyrs does not cry from the ground for vengeance; vengeance is the Lord's.

Temple work in general and, more specifically, prayers that God, rather than Mormon members, would avenge Joseph Smith is what was the salvation of the church in Nauvoo. Instead of giving vent to passionate desires for revenge using the impressively-sized Nauvoo Legion, the brethren were able to get members to channel their frustration and anger into petitions to the Almighty for justice. Their actual energy was concentrated on the things of heaven through temple building and service. Temple prayer became a way of ritually memorializing Joseph Smith's martyrdom.

Conflict in Utah: To pray the Father to avenge the blood of the prophets and righteous men that has been shed

After the exodus to Utah, ordinances usually reserved for the temple were performed in the Endowment House, while temple construction was in progress. In a late recollection, David H. Cannon described the instruction at the Endowment House in regards to vengeance:

To pray the Father to avenge the blood of the prophets and righteous men that has been shed, etc. In the endowment house this was given but as persons went there only once, it was not so strongly impressed upon their minds, but in the setting in order [of] the endowments for the dead it was given as it is written in 9 Chapter of Revelations [sic] and in that language we importune our Father, not that we may, but that He, our Father, will avenge the blood of martyrs shed for the testimony of Jesus.

Although the religious stress was on letting God perform the actual vengeance, individuals sometimes imagined they might be called upon to take a more active role. This phenomenon reached a low point after the rhetorical hyperbole of Mormon Reformation and the war time hysteria created by President James Buchanan sending troops against Utah. From the pulpit, many Church leaders held the United States as a nation responsible for letting mobocracy get out of control. As tensions mounted, vengeance motifs surfaced in the apocalyptic language of some patriarchal blessings. The Saints were prepared to fight in a just war.

While the Utah War was nearly a bloodless conflict, tragedy struck some caught in the crossfire. A recent work has examined the way conspiring, local Mormon leaders manipulated others to become complicit in the Mountain Meadows Massacre in part by exploiting their desires for vengeance. However, in their approach to explain how basically good people could commit such an atrocity, the authors found elements in common with vigilantism and mass killings perpetrated everywhere. They agree that these southern Utah Mormons were acting against the principles of their religion. Their oaths of taught them to channel their righteous indignation into petitioning God for justice while they worked constructively to build and defend Zion.

The Reed Smoot Hearings brought to light that the Saints were covenanting to ask God to avenge the blood of Joseph Smith on the nation

Most accounts of the temple oath of vengeance stressed that God, rather than man, would do the actual punishing. For example, August Lundstrom, an apostate Mormon, testified at the Reed Smoot hearings in December 1904:

Mr. [Robert W.] Tayler [counsel for the protestants]: Can you give us the obligation of retribution?

Mr. Lundstrom: I can.

Mr. Tayler: You may give that.

Mr. Lundstrom: "We and each of us solemnly covenant and promise that we shall ask God to avenge the blood of Joseph Smith upon this nation." There is something more added, but that is all I can remember verbatim. That is the essential part.

Mr. Tayler: What was there left of it? What else?

Mr. Lundstrom: It was in regard to teaching our children and children's children to the last generation to the same effect.

One could object that Lundstrom, as an apostate, fabricated the existence of such an oath or, intentionally or unintentionally, distorted its wording. However, others who spoke publicly (such as David H. Cannon above) had similar recollections.

Biblical Perspective: justice is a responsibility reserved for God

The Oath of Vengeance is a vivid reminder that the Saints understood the writings of the Apostle Paul -- that justice is a responsibility reserved for God.

Romans 12:19

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Response to claim: 32 - The "entire Mormon people" became "sworn and avowed enemies of the American nation"

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

It is claimed that the "entire Mormon people [became] sworn and avowed enemies of the American nation."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

Despite this claim, we soon learn that the Mormons volunteered for U.S. military service (see p. 47 below).

Response to claim: 36 - The author claims that Brigham "disposed of his rivals." Stanley P. Hirshson is quoted as claiming that Nauvoo became a "police state"

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Brigham "disposed of his rivals." Stanley P. Hirshson is quoted as claiming that Nauvoo became a "police state."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

From the cited source:

Engulfed by dissension from within and without, Young established in Nauvoo a police state. When he returned to the town after Smith's death and was served with several writs, he strapped on a pair of six-shooters and vowed he would kill any man who handed him another summons or grabbed hold of him. Until he left Nauvoo, he wore those guns. (pp 61-62)

• Note the following from the Journal of Discourses:

"When the mantle of Joseph Smith fell upon Brigham Young, the enemies of God and His kingdom sought to inaugurate a similar career for President Young; but he took his revolver from his pocket at the public stand in Nauvoo, and declared that upon the first attempt of an officer to read a writ to him in a State that had violated its plighted faith in the murder of the Prophet and Patriarch while under arrest, he should serve the contents of this writ (holding his loaded revolver in his hand) first; to this the vast congregation assembled said, Amen. He was never arrested." (George A. Smith, Journal of Discourses 13:110.)

Question: Did the Nauvoo police commit "many murders, vicious beatings, and intimidating assaults" against people that they thought to be enemies of the Church?

Nothing in the cited sources provide evidence for these claims

The critical work One Nation Under Gods claims that Nauvoo police committed murders and inflicted beating on those that they thought were enemies of the Church. The citations supporting this claim are listed as:

• Allen J. Stout, "Allen J. Stout Journal," under June 28, 1844, Utah State Historical Society, 14, online at http://www.math.byu.edu/~smithw/Lds/LDS/Early-Saints/AStout.html.
• Hosea Stout, under February 22, 1845 and March 13, 1847, in Juanita Brooks, ed., On the Mormon Frontier: The Diary of Hosea Stout, vol. 1, 22; 241.
• D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 151, 643.

Nothing in the cited sources provide evidence for these claims. A best, the expressed desire for vengeance upon Joseph Smith's murderers provides motive for violent acts against those complicit in his assassination. But, no proof of this has been here presented. One Nation Under Gods claims much more than the sources report.

The author's remark about "perceived enemies of the Church" is likewise disingenuous. Surely anyone who participated in Joseph Smith's murder would be a definite enemy of the Church he founded. The author wants to create a portrait of arbitrary and capricious violence—but he has here presented no evidence to sustain that charge.

Examining the source: Quinn

• Nothing on Quinn, 151 supports this claim: it speaks only of
  • Orrin Porter Rockwell's desire (not carried out) to kill apostate Robert D. Foster
  • Allen Stout's report that he would not let Joseph and Hyrum's murders go unavenged
  • Stephen Markham's desire to avenge Joseph's murders

• Quinn, 643 discusses the period from 8 Mar to 18 April 1844, while Joseph Smith was alive. There is no mention of violence of any sort.

Examining the source: Allen Stout

Allen Stout's journal is cited by Quinn. It thus adds nothing.

Examining the source: Hosea Stout

Hosea Stout's journal for 22 February 1844 reads only:

February 22, Saturday. In the morning went to Brother J. P. Harmon's there met Bishop [George] Miller, when we three went to the [Nauvoo] temple while consulting on matters pertaining to our safety and also the manner to pursue to rid ourselves of traitors who are in our midst seeking our lives.

Stout only worries about keeping the Saints safe, and keeping out traitors seeking to cause the death of the Saints. Stout's 13 March 1847 journal reads:

At dark I went to a meeting of the seventies at the Council house. Here J.P. Packer was up before them for a charge of stealing a brace of six shooters by getting them with a forged order. Some was for cutting him off. Some for keeping him on trial for awhile and so on. I spoke quite lengthy on the subject and was for keeping him in fellowship as I could fellowship any man that could be suffered to live amongst us and when we could not stand it any longer to cut him off –behind the ears- according to the law of God in such cases. I came home about twelve o’clock at night.

Stout here advocates mercy for a member guilty of stealing weapons through fraud. Stout does argue that there are crimes for which people may be killed ("cut...off-behind the ears") under divine law. Examples could include murder: Genesis 9:6, Alma 42:19, D&C 42:19.) There is nothing about this citation which supports the book's claim that the leaders or members of the Church generally advocated killing those who were the church's "enemies." The criminal in this case is guilty of theft—a civil crime. And even then, Stout does not advocate excommunication, much less judicial murder. As his previous entry shows, those "seeking our lives" might be subject to more severe justice. Such an attitude toward plotted or attempted murder is not at all out of place on the 19th-century American frontier, as two frontier legal scholars noted:

Under English common law...a person who was assailed and in fear of death or great bodily injury was required, if at all possible, to flee the scene and thus avoid a confrontation....

But American pioneers had no use for that kind of thinking...."A man is not born to run away." Those were the words used by U.S. Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to explain the rationale of his 1921 Supreme Court opinion in Brown v. United States, which rejected the English common law doctrine of 'duty to retreat' in favor of a rule more in tune with the combative spirit of the American frontier—the 'stand your ground' rule. In the Brown opinion, Holmes went on to explain that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."

Response to claim: 36 - The author claims that John D. Lee was "an integral component in the new power structure" after Joseph's death

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that John D. Lee was "an integral component in the new power structure" after Joseph's death.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The author must provide evidence for this assertion. Even if Lee was part of the LDS lay leadership, this does nothing to prove that his actions were sanctioned by his superiors.

Response to claim: 37 - The author claims that Emma and other Smith relatives returned to Far West and founded the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Emma and other Smith relatives returned to Far West and founded the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The RLDS church was organized in Amboy, Illinois. Emma Smith lived in Nauvoo, Illinois until her death. Emma did not encourage or organize the RLDS church; when her son, Joseph Smith III, agreed to take its leadership, she traveled to the inaugural meeting to support him.

Response to claim: 37 - The author claims that Joseph wanted people to receive their endowments for the "Mormon road to heaven"

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Joseph wanted people to receive their endowments for the "Mormon road to heaven."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The cited source says nothing about Joseph Smith at all. It is an anti-Mormon expose of the endowment ceremonies. The cited source is notoriously unreliable. Even the anti-Mormon Fanny Stenhouse wrote that the book "so mixed up fiction with what was true, that it was difficult to determine where one ended and the other began," and a good example of how "the autobiographies of supposed Mormon women were [as] unreliable" as other Gentile accounts, given her tendency to "mingl[e] facts and fiction" "in a startling and sensational manner." The authors' poor grasp of LDS historiography, and poor historical judgment is again manifest.

Response to claim: 37 - LDS missionaries to England "capitalized on the intolerable social and economic conditions" in order to gain converts

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

LDS missionaries to England "capitalized on the intolerable social and economic conditions" in order to gain converts.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Fawn Brodie's claim oversimplifies a great deal. Charles Dickens described LDS immigrants as "the pick and flower of England." Immigration was also not a matter of instant financial benefits.

Response to claim: 38 - Quoting D. Michael Quinn, the author notes that Brigham said that women "have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God"

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

Quoting D. Michael Quinn, the author notes that Brigham said that women "have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Quinn provides a more extensive citation which the author omits.

Question: Why did Brigham Young say that women "have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God"?

Brigham's intent has been distorted

Brigham Young said women "have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God". This is used to portray Brigham as authoritarian and sexist. However, Brigham's intent has been distorted, and those who cite this have used presentism to bias the reader against him.

Sally Denton uses this quote, and uses D. Michael Quinn, as her source. Unfortunately, Denton omits the context which Quinn's volume provides:

[women] have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God[—]outside the pale of this they have a right to meddle because many of them are more sagacious & shrewd & more competent [than men] to attend to things of financial affairs. they never can hold the keys of the Priesthood apart from their husbands.

Brigham then continued, "When I want Sisters or the Wives of the members of the church to get up Relief Society I will summon them to my aid but until that time let them stay at home & if you see females huddling together veto the concern."

Brigham's statement about "meddling," then, in no way reflects on women's competence or skills—he insists that many know better than men. Brigham's point is that women have no right to priesthood government. This statement was probably precipitated by Emma Smith's use of her role as head of the Relief Society to resist Joseph's teachings, especially plural marriage. Brigham is signaling that those without priesthood power may not dictate to ordained priesthood leaders about priesthood matters.

The author relies on presentism, since Brigham and virtually all of his contemporaries (men and women) likely had attitudes about women's roles which would strike us as "sexist"

Though the quote seems offensive and exclusionary, we need to remember the context of the time. Attitudes toward women during that time, and even 100 years later, were far from our current attitudes. It is unreasonable to expect people living in a different time to fit 21st century perspectives. Brigham was, however, quite liberal for his day—he encouraged women to get an education: for example, he even assigned several to travel to the eastern United States to get training as physicians.

Response to claim: 38 - The author claims that Brigham "commended his police for nearly beating to death an apostate within the walls of the temple"

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Brigham "commended his police for nearly beating to death an apostate within the walls of the temple."

Author's sources:

1. No source provided.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Although the author provides no source for the claim, it is likely that this refers to the flogging of three men by Nauvoo Police. The source is likely One Nation Under Gods, which misrepresents the sources that author cites. In addition, there is nothing mentioned about beating someone "within the walls of the temple."

Question: Did Hosea Stout have three men flogged because they "were not in good fellowship"?

The Nauvoo police did not threaten others because they were "not in good fellowship"

Stout's journal entry begins:

[September] 14, Sunday. Went with my wife to meeting at the Stand. H. [Heber] C. Kimball and Brigham Young preached about the mob burning houses and gave the Saints advice what to do under the present trying circumstances; at intermission I met the Eleventh Quorum near the Stand, and then in the afternoon attended meeting.

The problems begin at the afternoon meeting:

It was a business meeting and all who were not in good fellowship were not allowed to be present and the police in keeping them away had to flog three who were determined to stay.

Thus, the Nauvoo police did not threaten others because they were "not in good fellowship." There was no problem with these men being in town, or attending the morning preaching.

The men who were flogged were refusing to leave a private meeting to which they were not invited and not entitled to attend

However, the afternoon meeting was "a business meeting." The Saints did not have an indoor assembly hall large enough to accommodate them, so meetings were held out of doors. The men "out of fellowship" who were flogged were refusing to leave a private meeting to which they were not invited and not entitled to attend.

The conclusion of Stout's diary entry probably illustrates why the Saints were so determined that their enemies not be present at their business meeting, during which plans for defense of the city and citizens were probably a topic:

After police meeting I went with Colonel [John] Scott to see [General] Rich; after some consultation with them we concluded that it was best to post a guard below the city to prevent any person from going in or out to correspond with the mob, as some were trying to make a difficulty in the name of the Mormons.

These floggings did not occur in a peaceful, tranquil, 21st century city

This was a nineteenth-century frontier town, surrounded by hostile enemies who were burning out-lying Mormon homes and who would again drive the Saints from Illinois in winter weather. The Saints had to make plans to maintain the peace of their city—plans which could be compromised if apostates or dissidents were aware of them. Those "out of fellowship" might also use what they learned at the business meeting to perform acts for which the Mormons could be "framed," giving their enemies a justification for further attacks and military action.

Violence only occurred after the three dissidents refused to leave a meeting to which they were not invited

The author often relies on Quinn, though he here does not cite him. Quinn writes,

In the fall of 1845, Mormon enforcers became openly violent in their approach toward dissenters. On 14 September Hosea Stout recorded that Nauvoo's police "had to flog" three men "who were not in good fellowship" but had tried to attend an open air "business meeting" of the church....These incidents were occurring at public meetings of the church during daylight hours.

Like the author, Quinn's treatment is inadequate. He fails to note that Stout did nothing to prevent those out of fellowship from attending public preaching meetings, and says nothing about the security situation in which the Church members found themselves. He tells us nothing about the fact that violence only occurred after the three dissidents refused to leave a meeting to which they were not invited.

The partial use of sources can sometimes lead to an inaccurate view of the complete picture.

Response to claim: 38-39 - The author mentions "the pending indictment of two leaders of the Church on counterfeiting charges..."

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

The author mentions "the pending indictment of two leaders of the Church on counterfeiting charges..."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Although the author provides no source for the claim, it is likely that this refers to a critical claim that Brigham Young, Willard Richards, Parley Pratt, and Orson Hyde were involved in making counterfeit coins.

Question: Are there government records that prove that the apostles were involved in counterfeiting in Nauvoo?

There are no "government records" which prove that the apostles "were involved in making counterfeit coins"

The book One Nation Under Gods claims that government records indicate that Brigham Young, Willard Richards, Parley Pratt, and Orson Hyde were involved in making counterfeit coins, and that this may have "started under Joseph's leadership." The author cites the following sources to support his claim:

• Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Mormon Kingdom, vol. 2, 51-64.
• D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 127, 650-651.
• Warsaw Signal, June 5, 1844.
• St Louis American, December 2, 1845.

There are no "government records" which prove that the apostles "were involved in making counterfeit coins" At best, there is an indictment from a local grand jury, but an indictment is not proof—and, it is unlikely that indictment was anything but a ploy to make sure the Mormons left.

Of three men accused, two are non-Mormons, and the third was criticized by Hyrum Smith for this practice after his eventual apostasy

On page 127, Quinn mentions three men who either passed counterfeit money or who were accused of counterfeiting—yet, two are non-Mormons, and the third was criticized by Hyrum Smith for this practice after his eventual apostasy.

On pages 650-651, Quinn mentions two items that relate to counterfeiting:

• 24 Mar. [1845] A disaffected Mormon writes that Theodore Turley, of the Council of Fifty, has prepared a press in Nauvoo for counterfeiting, and that Turley gave the man a counterfeit $5.00 bill. [650]
• 4 June. [1845] Young and Kimball learn that Warren Snow and Dominicus Carter have been jailed in Quincy, Illinois, for passing counterfeit money. Bishop Joseph L. Heywood confirms that they are guilty. In Utah Snow would become a bishop and Carter a member of a stake presidency. [651]

None of this associates Joseph Smith (or any of the named apostles) with approving or conducting counterfeiting in any way

That Snow and Carter later held church leadership positions says nothing about official sanction for their actions in Nauvoo—repentance is a firm tenet of the Church.

The "government documents" to which the author refers (via the Tanners) date from 1846 and appear to be a ploy to provide incentive for the Saints to leave Nauvoo

The grand jury of the United States district court of Springfield, Illinois, in January 1846, issued twelve indictments against prominent Church leaders for counterfeiting United States coin. [Niles' National Register, January 3, 1846.] This action was generally thought to be a ploy on the part of the government to make certain that the Saints would keep their promise to leave Nauvoo in the spring. Church leaders issued a circular in which they denied the charge of counterfeiting. They reiterated that they expected the migration to begin early in March. [Missouri Reporter, February 5, 1846.] They then went into hiding and refused to give themselves up for trial.

Response to claim: 39 - The author claims that "thousands of armed Mormons and Gentiles faced off" in Nauvoo

The author(s) of American Massacre make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that "thousands of armed Mormons and Gentiles faced off" in Nauvoo.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Everyone on the frontier in 19th century America was armed—this was necessary for hunting and protection. That being said, there was never an armed "face-off" in Nauvoo. The Latter-day Saints were driven out of Nauvoo by the threat of military force.

Notes