Millions Shall Know

[Daniel Peterson]

James Gordon Bennett, writing in the New York Herald to announce Joseph's death:

The death of the modern Mahomet will seal the fate of Mormonism. They cannot get another Joe Smith. The holy city must tumble into ruins, and the "latter day saints" have indeed come to the latter day.

Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, 2d ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1975), 398:

When the anti-Mormons saw that Joseph's death had not destroyed the church, they began to hound it in earnest. They faithfully emulated the burning and pillaging of the Missourians until Brigham Young agreed to take his people west.

Yesirree. It was only about Joseph Smith. When he was gone, and only interesting doctrinal differences remained, the Mormons and their neighbors settled into peaceful coexistence punctuated by occasional good-natured theological discussions, rural barn-raisings, and Fourth of July picnics.

I'm the only person who has ever imagined that anybody ever thought that the death of Joseph Smith might prove to be the end of Mormonism.

[Pahoran]

I have no idea what anniversary you are referring to and don't really care.

So you pose as an expert, pontificating about what "the historical record" does or does not say--and you are ignorant of the significance of the date, June 27?

As in June 27, 1844?

What a historian!

Regards,

Pahoran

[bethabara]

I get shivers every time we begin singing the 4th verse.

"Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven."

Co-existing with my personal testimony of the universal truthfulness of the statement is the awful consideration of what was sacrificed in the loss of Joseph and Hyrum that we might enjoy the blessings of heaven.

God bless all to take up our respective crosses and drink our personal bitter cups. Never has there been a better example and a better disciple.

[gtaggart]

James Gordon Bennett, writing in the New York Herald to announce Joseph's death:

Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, 2d ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1975), 398:

Yesirree. It was only about Joseph Smith. When he was gone, and only interesting doctrinal differences remained, the Mormons and their neighbors settled into peaceful coexistence punctuated by occasional good-natured theological discussions, rural barn-raisings, and Fourth of July picnics.

I'm the only person who has ever imagined that anybody ever thought that the death of Joseph Smith might prove to be the end of Mormonism.

And to that, add this, from "Carthage Conspiracy" by none other than Marvin Hill and Dallin Oaks:

[After the martyrdom] Many hoped that the Mormons would now disperse. The editor of the Quincy Whig spoke for the non-Mormon community when he warned: "So long as they are banded together under the direction of one head . . . so long will they be looked upon by the people of the State with mistrust and suspicion" (p. 23, elipse in "Carthage Conspiracy")

And this, from "Rough Stone Rolling":

Sharp was sure of suppoort when on June 12 he called for Joseph's assassination and the extermination of Mormonism (p. 543).

[Daniel Peterson]

Sheesh. Gervin's getting us to do his research for him after all.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, I'm leaving in a few minutes. I'll be out of town through Sunday evening or thereabouts, without a computer. (I'm told, incidentally, that I'm using a sockpuppet to post up a storm on the Shades Obsession Board. Evidently I'm doing it unconsciously and unaware; we'll see if I can now continue doing so telepathically, as well.)

It seems that I made the notion up out of whole cloth that some of the anti-Mormons of 1844 expected the death of Joseph Smith to put an end to Mormonism and the Church. And, just like Fawn Brodie (a predecessor of mine in the art of Mopologist spin, or so it appears), I invented it in order to "promote faith" via cynical lying. I'll be curious to see what further evidence Gervin will be able to produce to show that this is the case.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I get shivers every time we begin singing the 4th verse.

"Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven."

Co-existing with my personal testimony of the universal truthfulness of the statement is the awful consideration of what was sacrificed in the loss of Joseph and Hyrum that we might enjoy the blessings of heaven.

God bless all to take up our respective crosses and drink our personal bitter cups. Never has there been a better example and a better disciple.

I had never made that connection in the song, thanks for your thoughts.

[USU78]

Yet, you never addressed my point, which is that JS publicly denied the very doctrine that played a pivotal role in his incarceration. In other words, while polygamy led to his arrest and murder, have denied the doctrine, and accused those who said otherwise of slander, I just don't accept that he was a martyr, as I understand the concept.

Polygyny is related to the Expositer incident which was the immediate cause for some of the charges, but not the most interesting one -- treason.

The treason went back to the Zion's Camp affair, years before in Missouri, which was what led the Missourianders to keep lobbying Illinois' fine governor and legislators to revoke the Nauvoo Charter, after attempts to extradite JSJr to Missouri kept failing in Court.

It was armed resistence to Missourians' outrageous in Jackson County (which never actually came to blows) that was the proximate cause. Polygyny was, at most, a pretext, JB.

[Scott Lloyd]

Then your quibble is with the BYU professor who was using it as an example of the political crack that Joseph Smith had put himself. Did you read the entire article. According to lifeonaplate, google.com has the answer to everything and could find the article easily enough. To reiterate Hill's point, it was not very much about religion.

I don't need to read the entire article to get the gist of the quotation from the newspaper article, which is what I'm disputing. And, make no mistake, my "quibble" is with you.

I'm not sidestepping your question, I'm ignoring it. Your question has nothing to do with my request that Peterson back up his statement that "the mob thought they'd finished Mormonism off when they murdered Joseph Smith."

It has everything to do with it. And you're ignoring it, because to deal with it would force you to come to terms with the fact that your contention doesn't make sense. If the mobs wanted nothing more than the death of Joseph Smith, why did they continue to oppress and persecute the saints after he was murdered? Your demand of Professor Peterson is just plain dumb.

[Gervin]

It seems that I made the notion up out of whole cloth that some of the anti-Mormons of 1844 expected the death of Joseph Smith to put an end to Mormonism and the Church.

That certainly reads differently than your first statement

The mob thought they'd finished Mormonism off when they murdered Joseph Smith

I'm sure "some of the anti-Mormons" did think this. No one, least of all you, has shown that the mob thought this to be the effect that killing Smith would have on the religion or the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

LOP: Do you care to answer Scott Lloyd's question?

No. Not really. You are welcome to draw what ever conclusions you wish. I just don't see that the question is relevant to my stated point.

How is it not relevant? If you are contending or implying, like Gervin, that the mob at Carthage may have had some other intent than to destroy the Church via the murder of Joseph Smith, then you have to face the question of why the persecution and oppression continued thereafter.

[Jaybear]

It seems that I made the notion up out of whole cloth that some of the anti-Mormons of 1844 expected the death of Joseph Smith to put an end to Mormonism and the Church.

If this was all that you said, I doubt Gervin would have asked for a source. I know I wouldn't have.

Instead you spoke as if you had insight into the motives of those actually participating in the lynching. By asking for your reference, I was not challenging your credibility, but genuinely interested to learn what specific statements had been attributed to men who had actually participated in the lynching.

USU: Polygyny is related to the Expositer incident which was the immediate cause for some of the charges, but not the most interesting one -- treason.

It was armed resistence to Missourians' outrageous in Jackson County (which never actually came to blows) that was the proximate cause. Polygyny was, at most, a pretext, JB.

The arrest warrant was not issued until after JS ordered the destruction of the Expositor. As for the charge of treason, I assumed it related to JS having used the militia to assist in the destruction of the Expositor. What evidence do you have the the treason charges were unrelated to the destruction of the Expositor?

Life: Scott Lloyd already answered the polygamy question. What Joseph was accused of and what he was actually practicing are 2 different things; thus the public denials, to Joseph, and to many others, were not dishonest. Again, check Rough Stone Rolling, or In Sacred Loneliness.

Dishonesty requires a subjective assessment of JS's intent to mislead. That you and Scott are more charitable in your assessment of JS's motive doesn't surprise me.

Scott: Are you prepared to argue that Jesus was not a martyr, then?

I am willing to discuss the issue rationally and dispassionately, and not take offense, and resort to personal attacks, if some disagrees with me. But frankly, the evidence of Jesus existence is fairly sparce, such that many factual assumptions would have to be made before one could construct a credible argument that Jesus was or was not a martyr.

Scott: How is it not relevant? If you are contending or implying, like Gervin, that the mob at Carthage may have had some other intent than to destroy the Church via the murder of Joseph Smith, then you have to face the question of why the persecution and oppression continued thereafter.

Generalized statements of unspecific acts of "persecution" and "oppression" attributed generally to people acting at a different time and place is a poor way to derive or attribute motive to a specific group of people, committing a specific crime. Evaluation of your question, would require a specific understanding these subsequent events, the motives of the people who participated in these events, and their connection with the mob at Carthage. I am not interested in going there.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If this was all that you said, I doubt Gervin would have asked for a source. I know I wouldn't have.

Instead you spoke as if you had insight into the motives of those actually participating in the lynching. By asking for your reference, I was not challenging your credibility, but genuinely interested to learn what specific statements had been attributed to men who had actually participated in the lynching.

The arrest warrant was not issued until after JS ordered the destruction of the Expositor. As for the charge of treason, I assumed it related to JS having used the militia to assist in the destruction of the Expositor. What evidence do you have the the treason charges were unrelated to the destruction of the Expositor?

Dishonesty requires a subjective assessment of JS's intent to mislead. That you and Scott are more charitable in your assessment of JS's motive doesn't surprise me.

I am willing to discuss the issue rationally and dispassionately, and not take offense, and resort to personal attacks, if some disagrees with me. But frankly, the evidence of Jesus existence is fairly sparce, such that many factual assumptions would have to be made before one could construct a credible argument that Jesus was or was not a martyr.

Generalized statements of unspecific acts of "persecution" and "oppression" attributed generally to people acting at a different time and place is a poor way to derive or attribute motive to a specific group of people, committing a specific crime. Evaluation of your question, would require a specific understanding these subsequent events, the motives of the people who participated in these events, and their connection with the mob at Carthage. I am not interested in going there.

I wonder why the mob kept on until the Mormons were booted from the state if all they wanted was to kill Joseph and his brother Hyrum.

[Doctor Steuss]

I wonder why the mob kept on until the Mormons were booted from the state if all they wanted was to kill Joseph and his brother Hyrum.

I was perusing some issues of the Warsaw Signal last night on Uncle Dale's site, and happend accross this:

ANTI-MORMON CONVENTION.

The Anti Mormons of each precinct are requested to hold meetings as soon as possible, and appoint delegates to attend a convention to be held at Carthage, on Saturday, the 20th inst. for the purpose of nominating candidates for County and State Offices, at the approaching election.

This was from the July 10, 1844 issue (just a few weeks after the death of Joseph and Hyram). Seems to me that their problem wasn't just with Joseph and Hyrum's "political views." Seems to me that it was Mormonism that they had a problem withâ?¦ and Joseph was Mormonism.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I was perusing some issues of the Warsaw Signal last night on Uncle Dale's site, and happend accross this:

ANTI-MORMON CONVENTION.

The Anti Mormons of each precinct are requested to hold meetings as soon as possible, and appoint delegates to attend a convention to be held at Carthage, on Saturday, the 20th inst. for the purpose of nominating candidates for County and State Offices, at the approaching election.

This was from the July 10, 1844 issue (just a few weeks after the death of Joseph and Hyram). Seems to me that their problem wasn't just with Joseph and Hyrum's "political views." Seems to me that it was Mormonism that they had a problem withâ?¦ and Joseph was Mormonism.

Sure, but I'll bet noone there was in the mob that killed them though, you know, pure speculation and whatnot. I'll bet the two events and groups are totally not related.

[Oracle]

I wonder why the mob kept on until the Mormons were booted from the state if all they wanted was to kill Joseph and his brother Hyrum.

At the time of Joseph's death there were approximately 35,000 members of the church and its organizational and theological structure was well established. I think it would have been naive on the part of the mob to believe that by killing Joseph the church would shrivel and die. Their further attempts to persecute the saints after Joseph's death would support this implication.

[Alf O'Mega]

Incidentally, Donna Hill, who allegedly wrote Joseph Smith: The First Mormon, was the sister of Professor Marvin Hill. She never published anything else on Mormon history, before or afterwards, and it is generally suspected among the cognoscenti that he was the real author of the book.

I have heard the same thing. She acknowledges somewhere in the front matter (I don't have my copy with me) that the bulk of the primary research was done by her brother. Do you have any idea what their motivation might have been for this arrangement? (I know you're leaving shortly. I'm happy to wait and get whatever response, public or private, that you're willing to make when it is most convenient for you.) Is it possible that Dr. Hill anticipated a negative reaction from the membership (or leadership) of the Church and hoped to shield himself (and his BYU position) from a backlash which, for whatever reason, his sister was willing to bear vicariously?

It seems to me that the sort of immersion in the sources required to synthesize a coherent view of a subject asâ??to say the leastâ??large as Joseph Smith is not something that can be facilitated by simply handing over notes and clippings. The thing is, The First Mormon is a fine biographyâ??better, on my most recent reading, than I had recalled. It is certainly superseded by Rough Stone Rolling in comprehensiveness and balance (and, truth be told, by No Man Knows My History in literary merit), but for a generation it has been the best place to start for a single-volume biography of the Prophet. So it seems more likely to be the work of a scholar of Marvin Hill's stature. I can't resist quoting something he wrote for the winter 1972 Dialogue:

To raise doubts about the validity of some of Brodie's arguments is not to dismiss her book. Her biography will continue to have great influence upon professional historians until someone writes one with equal or greater plausibility. With the benefit of new sources and better insight into the intellectual and cultural background of early Mormonism, this may be possible. It is not enough to write reviews or articles for learned journals, for these are read by few, nor to publish volumes of new sources for these provide no substitute. Those who attempt a biography must write with courage, for no matter what they say many will disagree strongly. And they must write with insight and power, for one of Brodie's strengths is that her book is exciting reading. Above all, in the face of contradictory sources and world views, they must strive to tell the truth. It may do well to recall John Garraty's warning that "the average man is so contradictory and complicated that by selecting evidence carefully, a biographer can 'prove' that his subject is almost anything." To write the truth about a man who was so many sided, so controversial as Joseph Smith is a very difficult thing. Nonetheless, with an attitude less cynical than Fawn Brodie's, it is time for some of us to try (Marvin S. Hill, "Brodie Revisited: A Reappraisal," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 7:4 [winter 1972], 85).

Now, as long as we're on the subject of suspected ghost-writers, let me say that those applying the term martyr to Joseph Smith will hear no objection from me. Merriam-Webster suggests these senses for the word:

1: a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion

2: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle

3: VICTIM; especially : a great or constant sufferer <a martyr to asthma all his life -- A. J. Cronin>

Insofar as Joseph Smith voluntarily surrendered to the authorities and expected that decision to cost him his life, it was an act consistent with the first sense. The early sources are not unanimous on whether he declared that he would be killed in cold blood, or if he were killed it would be cold-blooded murder. (See this thread.) But accepting the clear foresight reported in D&C 135, we next must ask if he believed his surrender was linked to a loyalty to religious principle. And since the central focus of his life by this point was building Zionâ??working for the temporal and spiritual salvation of his peopleâ??it seems obvious that he believed that protecting the people of Nauvoo was his religious duty. Refusing to turn his back on his panicky followers was "refusing to renounce a religion."

Now martyr is a term most apt to be used by those on the same ideological page as the subject. Personally I prefer to describe his killing as an assassination, which captures the political component of the act. And given the text of the hymnâ??"his blood, which was shed by assassins"â??it's a good choice for interlocutors of a broad range of ideologies.

One other point I wanted to make in the shadow of this dark anniversary: the prophecy that Joseph's "name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues" was not exactly self-fulfilling, nor was it by the point that it was recorded (1839) inevitable (although Heber C. Kimball had already opened the work in England two years earlier). Nevertheless, we are talking about it precisely because Mormonism has been so successful. It's something like the anthropic principle in cosmology. We find the conditions of the universe compatible with life because we are here to study the question at all. If Joseph Smith had instead slipped into obscurity, we would not be assembled here considering why his movement had not been so successful. It was his movement that brought us together at all, so it is, for those of us who come from the community he launched, a somewhat tautological matter.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Doctor Steuss]

At the time of Joseph's death there were approximately 35,000 members of the church and its organizational and theological structure was well established. I think it would have been naive on the part of the mob to believe that by killing Joseph the church would shrivel and die. Their further attempts to persecute the saints after Joseph's death would support this implication.

Given the continued publications calling for the extermination of the Mormons, the pleas to Ford for assistance in doing such, and the fears of Mormon retaliation, I'd say that you are technically correct. However, the first steps in killing a chimera is to remove two of its heads. The third head was the remaining Mormons. Although they might not have believed the chimera would die once two of its heads were removed, they most likely believed it to be the beginning of the end for the Mormon beast.

[Scott Lloyd]

Dishonesty requires a subjective assessment of JS's intent to mislead. That you and Scott are more charitable in your assessment of JS's motive doesn't surprise me.

Perceived dishonesty and charitableness are actually peripheral to the point here, that being that neither denial of public accusation regarding the practice nor secrecy regarding its true nature amount to a renunciation of it. Obviously, there was no such renunciation, as Joseph Smith continued to practice plural marriage up to his death, and the practice continued in the Church -- with public acknowledgment -- on through to near the end of the century. Thus, your denial of Joseph's martyrhood fails, based as it is on a supposed renunciation that never occurred.

Generalized statements of unspecific acts of "persecution" and "oppression" attributed generally to people acting at a different time and place is a poor way to derive or attribute motive to a specific group of people, committing a specific crime. Evaluation of your question, would require a specific understanding these subsequent events, the motives of the people who participated in these events, and their connection with the mob at Carthage. I am not interested in going there.

Your assumption here of disconnected and isolated acts of persecution and oppression do not square with history and betray a general lack of awareness and understanding of these events. There was an ongoing atmosphere of mob oppression that persisted unabated from the last years of Joseph's life on through to the forced exodus of the body of the Church from Nauvoo in 1846.

[cinepro]

I also have a testimony of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. My favorite line in "Praise to the Man" is "Millions shall know Brother Joseph again." I look forward to being one of those millions.

Hopefully W.W. Phelps wasn't using "know" in the Biblical sense.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Did the hymn, put to music to the tune that was the predecessor to Scotland the Brave, accurately predict JSJr's influence?

USU "Yer darned tootin'" 78

Indeed "Praise to the Man". Ever noticed how the Anti's never want to discuss the "prophecies" fullfilled?

Pa Pa

[Jaybear]

...that being that neither denial of public accusation regarding the practice nor secrecy regarding its true nature amount to a renunciation of it. Obviously, there was no such renunciation, ....

I disagree. In response to the charges, JS and the leaders not only announced to the public, but to mormons that:

"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man, should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death,, when either is at liberty to marry again." History of the Church, vol. 5, pg. 30 (May 1836)

The early christians could have publicly renounced Christ, been spared death and then went on and worshiped Christ in private, but they chose death.

JS and the early leaders publicly renounced polygamy.

Your assumption here.... betray a general lack of awareness and understanding of these events.

More accurately, consistent with my "general lack of awareness" of post-lynching events, I made no assumptions, period. I am not assuming they are connected. I am not assuming they are not connected. I expressly chose not to comment on the implications of unidentified and unspecified acts of "oppression"

[LifeOnaPlate]

I disagree. In response to the charges, JS and the leaders not only announced to the public, but to mormons that:

"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man, should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death,, when either is at liberty to marry again." History of the Church, vol. 5, pg. 30 (May 1836)

The early christians could have publicly renounced Christ, been spared death and then went on and worshiped Christ in private, but they chose death.

JS and the early leaders publicly renounced polygamy.

More accurately, consistent with my "general lack of awareness" of post-lynching events, I made no assumptions, period. I am not assuming they are connected. I am not assuming they are not connected. I expressly chose not to comment on the implications of unidentified and unspecified acts of "oppression"

The account you cite was not written by Joseph Smith, rather, it was written by one who had not been introduced to the priciple of plural marriage, [NOT polygamy,] and it was not a principle for the church in entirety, either.

This brings up the question, though: were there esoteric teachings of Christ not communicated in the Biblical canon? Not taught to the general public?

[Scott Lloyd]

I disagree. In response to the charges, JS and the leaders not only announced to the public, but to mormons that:

"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man, should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death,, when either is at liberty to marry again." History of the Church, vol. 5, pg. 30 (May 1836)

Since the doctrine of plurality of wives had not yet been given to the Church, the above statement, expressing the formal position of the Church at that time, was technically accurate.

Given that mobs were continually seeking the death of Joseph Smith and the destruction of the Church, I think the Brethren could be excused for not being more forthcoming than they were.

The early christians could have publicly renounced Christ, been spared death and then went on and worshiped Christ in private, but they chose death.

When they had to, they chose death.

Again, Joseph and the Brethren answered the accusations that were put forth and were guarded about saying anything else. Is this a renunciation? Hardly.

Stupidity is not a condition for martyrhood.

More accurately, consistent with my "general lack of awareness" of post-lynching events, I made no assumptions, period. I am not assuming they are connected. I am not assuming they are not connected. I expressly chose not to comment on the implications of unidentified and unspecified acts of "oppression"

In raising the question, your presupposition -- and your default position -- is that they were not connected. I question whether you know enough about Church history to take such a position, tacit or not.

[Jaybear]

The account you cite was not written by Joseph Smith, rather, it was written by one who had not been introduced to the priciple of plural marriage, [NOT polygamy,] and it was not a principle for the church in entirety, either.

Really, I was under the impression that this statement was voted on, approved unanimously, and published as as part of the Doctrine and Covenants until 1876.

Scott: Since the doctrine of plurality of wives had not yet been given to the Church, the above statement, expressing the formal position of the Church at that time, was technically accurate.

JS married Fanny Agler circa 1833.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/02-FannyAlger.htm

Given that mobs were continually seeking the death of Joseph Smith and the destruction of the Church, I think the Brethren could be excused for not being more forthcoming than they were.

....

Stupidity is not a condition for martyrhood.

Hey, if it were me I would have renounced Christ, while having my fingers crossed. I have no interest in being a martyr. I cast no aspersions on those that share my desire for self preservation.

Again, Joseph and the Brethren answered the accusations that were put forth and were guarded about saying anything else. Is this a renunciation? Hardly.

They were not merely guarded about saying anything else, they caused the destruction of a printing press to prevent the publication of facts bearing on the existence of this secret practice.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Scot: In raising the question, your presupposition -- and your default position -- is that they were not connected. I question whether you know enough about Church history to take such a position, tacit or not.

The only question I asked is if Dan had evidence to support his assertion about the motives of the mob. I made no assumptions, I took no position. I don't know if I can say this any clearer. I (admittedly) do not know why the mob gathered, stormed the jail, and killed JS. Dan may very well be right. I haven't said otherwise.

I am admittedly ignorant on this point, and on the events that occurred leading the exodus.