Joseph'S Removal.

[Cobalt-70]

Quaere: if, as Stout says, "Dunham did not let a single man or mortal know that he had received such orders," how did Stout know about them?

He may be a hearsay source, but who did he hear, and what did they say?

Stout doesn't say how he learned this, so we don't know whether or not it is a rumor. The main value of Stout is that he is one of two sources that say there was a letter, and that the existence of a letter is consistent with Smith's reaction when the Greys started storming the jail. I never said it was a cut-and-dried case, just that such a letter is likely to have existed.

You're being a little bit coy here, aren't you? Stenhouse was a notorious 19th century apostate and anti-Mormon, whose book vied with several other "Exposé" works that all competed to outdo each other for sheer sensationalism.

Stenhouse said that somebody actually saw the letter. And Stenhouse's beef was not really with Joseph Smith, but rather with Brigham Young (not that calling in the Nauvoo Legion really reflects badly on Smith). In any event, Stenhouse, despite his personal views, was a pretty reliable reporter and was remarkably fair, especially considering the era.

Let me guess: if I ask for a link to this supposed "contemporary letter," you'll duck out of it by saying it's not a secret and anyone can read about it, right?

I don't think there is an online source for the July 30, 1844 letter. You'll have to go to a library. The original is in the Newberry Library, Chicago Illinois (Thomas Holman, Jr. to George C. Weston)

Edited March 29, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Pahoran]

Has anybody here thought of the possibilty that God allowed Joseph to be killed because of some of the bad things Joseph was doing during the last few years of his life? It seems to me that Joseph may have been going a little of track with the manner in which he was practicing polygamy. Perhaps his death prevented him from leading the church astray?

Interesting theory. Let's see if it is at all useful in a general explanatory sense.

Why did God permit Cain to kill Abel? Was it because of the bad stuff Abel was doing?

What about Zecharias the son of Jeberechias?

What about Stephen? Peter? Paul?

What about Jesus?

If the Lord can permit the wicked to murder the righteous in all times and places throughout history, why should Joseph be an exception? Why is there even any need to find an explanation for his death, which was entirely consistent with his prophetic claims?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Log]

del

Edited March 29, 2012 by Log

[Pahoran]

Stout doesn't say how he learned this, so we don't know whether or not it is a rumor. The main value of Stout is that he is one of two sources that say there was a letter,

But again: his own testimony rules out having first-hand knowledge of the letter.

It explicitly rules him out of hearing of it from Dunham.

He names no sources. Therefore Stout is a "source" for nothing more than a rumour of a letter.

and that the existence of a letter is consistent with Smith's reaction when the Greys started storming the jail.

No. It is consistent with what someone claimed about his reaction at that time. So, for that matter, are a lot of other things, but note that John Taylor does not report Joseph making any such remark. Why is that?

And just how credible is that supposed report, anyway? Here's a man in jail. The jailer says, "Why are all those guys outside with guns?" The prisoner says, "Don't worry, they're just here to bust me out." The jailer is supposed to be reassured by that?

In what universe?

Please note that the assault on the jail was cut short when someone outside raised a cry: "The Mormons are coming!" Were the Carthage Greys all privy to the contents of the supposed letter, too? Are you going to solemnly intone that that scarehead is a "source" providing evidence that the Mormons really were coming?

Or is that just another of the many rumours that went swirling around at the time, and after?

Like the rumours that the men wounded by Joseph's pistol never recovered and rotted away? That rumour was seriously believed by a lot of people at one time, but it has been thoroughly debunked. Why should the rumour about the letter that no-one ever saw be believed, just because a jailer reported Joseph making a remark nobody else heard him make, and to which the jailer did not respond as he must have, had Joseph actually said it?

I never said it was a cut-and-dried case, just that such a letter is likely to have existed.

"Likely" in your mind. Given that you have a track record of uncritically accepting every anti-Mormon story about every event in Church history, that's hardly a recommendation.

Stenhouse said that somebody actually saw the letter.

And one of my missionary companions "actually" knew someone who actually knew someone who actually knew the missionary who killed the lady's cat by flicking its nose and then stuffed it under the couch. That, too, never happened.

Stenhouse vouching for an anonymous report adds no weight. The name of his informant might be helpful, though.

And Stenhouse's beef was not really with Joseph Smith, but rather with Brigham Young (not that calling in the Nauvoo Legion really reflects badly on Smith). In any event, Stenhouse, despite his personal views, was a pretty reliable reporter and was remarkably fair, especially considering the era.

You realise, don't you, that all of that is fluff, and has no evidentiary value at all?

I don't think there is an online source for the July 10, 1844 letter. You'll have to go to a library.

In which case it is not in the category of evidence for the purposes of this discussion.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Has anybody here thought of the possibilty that God allowed Joseph to be killed because of some of the bad things Joseph was doing during the last few years of his life? It seems to me that Joseph may have been going a little of track with the manner in which he was practicing polygamy. Perhaps his death prevented him from leading the church astray?

What in particular did you have in mind and can you demonstrate that this specific behaviour was not continued by Brigham Young (which would seem to me to rule out the idea that Joseph was removed to stop an error)?

[Cobalt-70]

But again: his own testimony rules out having first-hand knowledge of the letter.

It explicitly rules him out of hearing of it from Dunham.

He didn't hear it from Dunham prior to Smith's death, at least. Stout could have heard it from Willard Richards, church historian, who copied a letter containing orders to Dunham on June 26 (HC 6:592), the day before Smith's death. Since Richards made a copy of the letter before it was sent, there would have been a backup. Stout and Richards spoke with each other on many occasions. Whatever Richards made a copy of that day has not been preserved, nor has the copy.

No. It is consistent with what someone claimed about his reaction at that time. So, for that matter, are a lot of other things, but note that John Taylor does not report Joseph making any such remark. Why is that?

And just how credible is that supposed report, anyway? Here's a man in jail. The jailer says, "Why are all those guys outside with guns?" The prisoner says, "Don't worry, they're just here to bust me out." The jailer is supposed to be reassured by that?

The jailers in Carthage were very good to the prisoners, and treated them well, and Smith in turn repaid the kindnesses. In fact, supposedly, according to HC, many of the jailers were convinced of their innocence. Smith evidently wanted to reassure them that they would not be harmed. This July 30, 1844 letter from Thomas Holaman , jr. to George C. Weston is very credible because it was written very soon after the murder, by a person who really had no personal interest in the matter.

Please note that the assault on the jail was cut short when someone outside raised a cry: "The Mormons are coming!" Were the Carthage Greys all privy to the contents of the supposed letter, too? Are you going to solemnly intone that that scarehead is a "source" providing evidence that the Mormons really were coming?

It is understandable that the Greys would be a little jumpy about the fact that a huge army, which dwarfed them in size, was just a few miles away. Smith's first reaction that the it was the Nauvoo Legion was saving him was not influenced by this cry from the rabble, because by then Smith was dead.

[Nominee]

Has anybody here thought of the possibilty that God allowed Joseph to be killed because of some of the bad things Joseph was doing during the last few years of his life? It seems to me that Joseph may have been going a little of track with the manner in which he was practicing polygamy. Perhaps his death prevented him from leading the church astray?

I am not sure what you mean by "the manner in which" but I do not feel that Brother Joseph was going off track by practicing polygamy. It was what it needed to be at the time it needed to be. Joseph Smith was not a fallen or falling prophet. I believe he was called by God and was/is obedient to the Lord.

[The Nehor]

Has anybody here thought of the possibilty that God allowed Joseph to be killed because of some of the bad things Joseph was doing during the last few years of his life? It seems to me that Joseph may have been going a little of track with the manner in which he was practicing polygamy. Perhaps his death prevented him from leading the church astray?

I have and I've rejected it. It doesn't square with what every prophet since has said of him.

[Jeff K.]

Nor does it square with the continue acts of the prophets and apostles following Joseph Smith's death (as mentioned earlier). It doesn't make sense logically, nor does it make sense in a spiritual sense.

[Pahoran]

He didn't hear it from Dunham prior to Smith's death, at least.

According to Stout, he didn't hear it from Dunham at all.

Stout could have heard it from Willard Richards, church historian, who copied a letter containing orders to Dunham on June 26 (HC 6:592), the day before Smith's death. Since Richards made a copy of the letter before it was sent, there would have been a backup. Stout and Richards spoke with each other on many occasions. Whatever Richards made a copy of that day has not been preserved, nor has the copy.

So you're appealing to "could have." And what does Richards have to say on the subject? Apparently nothing.

Conjecture is not evidence, Cobalt. Stout "could have" heard this rumour anywhere. For instance, Joseph also dictated a letter to his lawyer, Orville Browning, and gave it to Dan Jones to deliver. The mob was already gathering, and they assumed that the letter was a message to the Nauvoo Legion to come and rescue Joseph. The rumour upon which you rely was already abroad even then. There was no way the mob members could possibly know what was in the letter, but they assumed that they did just the same.

That's how rumours work, you see.

Stout heard a rumour and believed it. In that he was not alone, but his acceptance thereof is evidence of precisely nothing.

The jailers in Carthage were very good to the prisoners, and treated them well, and Smith in turn repaid the kindnesses.

Oh yes, they treated them so very well. According to Dan Jones, Frank Worrell, the officer in charge of the Carthage Greys guarding the jail, told him:

"We have had too much trouble to bring old Joe here to let him ever escape alive, and unless you want to die with him, you had better leave before sundown; and you are not a damned bit better than him for taking his part, and you'll see that I can prophesy better than old Joe, for neither he nor his brother, nor anyone who will remain with them, will see the sun set today."

Such friendly fellows, those Carthage Greys!

In fact, supposedly, according to HC, many of the jailers were convinced of their innocence. Smith evidently wanted to reassure them that they would not be harmed. This July 30, 1844 letter from Thomas Holaman , jr. to George C. Weston is very credible because it was written very soon after the murder, by a person who really had no personal interest in the matter.

So you drop names, but keep it conveniently out of sight. Well I'm sorry, but it still has no evidentiary value for this discussion. Sorry.

It is understandable that the Greys would be a little jumpy about the fact that a huge army, which dwarfed them in size, was just a few miles away.

That, and the fact that they were in on the murder plot. See Proverbs 28:1.

Smith's first reaction that the it was the Nauvoo Legion was saving him was not influenced by this cry from the rabble, because by then Smith was dead.

That's not the point. The point is that the mob thought the Legion was coming, despite the fact that they could not possibly have been privy to the contents of any secret communications between Joseph and Dunham. In fact, Joseph did write two letters to Dunham on the 22nd and 24th of June. These were what Richards made copies of on the 26th, but they dealt with other matters.

There is no evidence that the hypothetical "rescue letter" ever existed.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding the alleged letter, see Richard L.Anderson's essential discussion of the sources in the latter half of the linked article, including eye-witness reports by John Taylor, who, unlike Stout who was in Nauvoo, and Stenhouse, who was in England, was in Carthage with Joseph Smith:

http://maxwellinstit...107&chapid=1211

Those with Joseph at Carthage are the only identifiable witnesses in this situation. A spirited and candid John Taylor tells how discussion on martyrdom day was "rather desultory" because there was no plan except to wait for a court hearing in two days. He adds that Joseph had already decided the question of using the legion. Taylor promised the Prophet freedom within five hours "if you will permit it, and say the word." Taylor added that he had planned to "go to Nauvoo, and collect a force sufficient," but "Brother Joseph refused."¹⁹ In Taylor's more detailed version of the same conversation, Joseph ruled out a legion rescue, had considered repeating the Missouri escape, but was firm in waiting for legal release. Answering Taylor's offer of an armed force, Joseph said:

That will not be the best way. It would be much better, if we contemplated escape, to call for a change of venue, and while passing from one place to another, to escape from the custody of the constable, and then claim our legal rights and protect ourselves until we obtain them.

20

I should think that an eyewitness who insists that Joseph did not send any such letter counts far more than gossip about what could have happened.

Anderson also observes that the continued trust given Dunham is consistent with acceptance of his loyalty, and not with general knowledge bestowed by someone waving around a letter found in the street, proving that Dunham had refused to come to Joseph Smith's aid. And Anderson shows the kind of rumors circulating around Carthage even before the martyrdom. Pahoran is correct on this. The notion of the letter is inconsistent with eye witness testimony and with the historical behavior of the principle figures.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited March 29, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[AddamS]

Personally, I don't believe in destiny or divinity as most people here do, but from a pragmatic point of view I think the survival of the church may have required Joseph Smith Jr.'s early death.

Over the course of his life he implemented (or, respectfully, The Lord implemented) many relatively radical policies of the church through what he considered to be revelations. Some of these changes caused instability in terms of the safety of The Saints and, in some cases, doubt by members. JSJ's death, in many ways, signified the closing of the establishment period of the church.

Once JSJ died, the church entered a more static state in terms of policy (I hope the abbreviated name isn't disrespectful). Please correct me if I'm incorrect in this assertion, but it seems to me Brigham Young wasn't all that comfortable with the idea of being the Prophet initially, though he understood the need for the church to have a President and was quite capable to fill the administrative role required for the church to continue. If JSJ was required to start the church, then BY was required to bring it to a state of continuance. He (as it seems to me) was better suited for the task of moving the flock out West and dealing with the struggles of keeping the organization running that JSJ would have been. In order for the church to survive, I believe both needed to play the roles they did.

JSJ's death also gave the anti's of the Midwest a victory in their fight against the LDS church. I'm in no way saying that "victory" was a good or deserved thing. What I'm saying is it gave the conflict some finality which enabled some of the people persecuting the LDS folks to move on to other events. While persecution continued, everything I have read has indicated it simmered down quite significantly after JSR's death. It wasn't eradicated, but the heat of the debate was growing exponentially during JSJ's life. While the Saints were persecuted during the trek to Utah and afterwards, It seems to me having a "boogey man" in the form of JSJ for the antis to chase could have made a situation that was already delicate much worse.

Lastly, the death of JSJ forced the church to stand on its own. Had he lived to a much older age the belief that the church couldn't have continued without him might have been more cemented into the minds of the saints and, possibly, led to the church falling apart.

I know we're dealing with a lot of "what ifs" and conjecture in this discussion. I'm just saying from the standpoint of looking at what needed to happen for the church to become as strong as it is today, I don't know if the institution would be as solid if JSJ hadn't died so young.

For the record. I do not, in any way, condone or take any satisfaction in his murder. I'm simply trying to illustrate for those here that do believe in destiny that it may be the only way for the church to survive was with the death of Joseph Smith Jr.

Edited March 29, 2012 by AddamS

[selek1]

Personally, I don't believe in destiny or divinity as most people here do, but from a pragmatic point of view I think the survival of the church may have required Joseph Smith Jr.'s early death.

The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that it assumes- without providing any evidence to support that assumption- that Joseph's continued involvement would have been detrimental a/o destabilizing.

In many respects, it strikes me as a rather shallow tautology and is predicated on naturalistic assumptions and caricatures of the individuals involved.

The argument assumes that Joseph would have clung bitterly to power- and implies that only his death prevented Joseph from becoming an Illinois Napoleon.

Both assumptions are contrary to what we know about Joseph and those around him, and LDS beliefs about how the Lord governs and watches over his Church.

If memory serves (and I cheerfully admit that it may not), Joseph had already begun divesting, rather than consolidating his power. Part of the reason for the turmoil in Nauvoo was that Joseph had begun delegating authority to others- including to men who ultimately proved less-than-worthy of his trust and their high calling.

The internal contention and conspiracies among the Saints arose when those individuals were exposed and removed- and began personal crusades to retain their power and authority at the expense of the Church as a whole.

The argument is further contradicted by Joseph's aborted flight west to the Rocky Mountains. Before packing his horse to leave, Joseph had organized a structure that he felt would be self sustaining in his absence- and with (comparatively) clear lines of succession.

This is, of course, the very same organization which governed the Church after Joseph's untimely murder.

Were Joseph the power-mad dictator that critics pretend, he would not have dared to leave, lest his sway over the faithful be weakened.

Modern-day examples of this phenomenon include David Koresh, James Jones, and Warren Jeffs. Each of these men (and hundreds more just like them) historically keep their victims under very tight control- preferably almost totally isolated from the world at large.

Nauvoo of the period was nothing like Hilldale, UT, Eldorado, TX, or Colorado City, It was one of the three largest cities in Illinois, and every bit as cosmopolitan as St. Louis or Chicago.

Nauvoo was an open city, a hub of culture and commerce- trading with major towns and cities all along the river, and welcomed visitors from every corner of the world.

The idea and implication that Joseph was power-mad or grasping is simply not evident from his conduct or from the testimony of those who knew him. Nor is it indicated by the success of the organization which he helped found.

I am also ambivalent about the idea that Joseph's murder acted in any way to assauge the blood lust of the Illinois and Missouri mobs (who were, in all-too-many-cases, one and the same).

The predations against the Mormons paused for only a few days at most- when the fear ran rampant that the Nauvoo Legion would rise and exact a bloody vengeance on the country side.

As soon as the Legion stacked arms at the order of the most craven, cowardly, and corrupt politician in Illinois history (at least until January 3, 2005)- the predations resumed unhindered in either ferocity or frequency.

The Mormons bought themselves a small respite with their agreement to withdraw from Illinois, but even that was short-lived, and mobs and predations forced the Mormons were in the dead of winter, months ahead of schedule.

That predations were mitigated between the death of Joseph Smith and the Reed Smoot hearings is beyond question: but the idea that the bloodlust of the mobocrats was slaked is ludicrous on its face.

The two mitigating factors were distance and relative population.

For the most part, the Mormons left the worst of the mobocrats to their wallow in Illinois and Missouri (ironically, areas that suffered the worst predations during the Civil War).

Those few who followed (or were appointed to staff the territorial government as political payoffs) were corrupt- but not completly stupid. Most mobocrats are cowards- and being outnumbered a hundred to one by the Mormons- were careful to keep their predations within the confines of their "official authority". Contention between the Saints and the territorial government arose only when corruption and abuse became intolerable- and it was this same class of corrupt plutocrats who perjured themselves in order to instigate the inaptly named "Utah War"- known more accurately as "Buchanan's Blunder".

Those few Saints who remained behind in Illinois bought their peace through an 18th century American version of dhimmism, or by marrying outside the faith (as even Emma Smith was called to do).

The fact that the remaining few Saints no longer constituted an influential political bloc erased the real root of contention between the Mormons and the old settlers.

For all the excuses given about polygamy, unfair practices, and the burgeoning theocracy- the crisis evaporated the moment the old guard became secure in their own power and den of corruption.

I will agree that Joseph's martyrdom indelibly shaped the face of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In the same vein, his murder inescapably shaped the history of western expansion in the United States. His murder, by extension, has reached out to shape not only what the Church became, but also what we became as a nation and a people.

But that does not support or suggest the idea that Joseph's murder was a seminal event in either the Church's survival or success.

Had he lived- and faced the same evil choices that the Church faced in Illinois- he might very well have led the Saints westward himself, but what of it?

Utah and the West would still have been shaped by the same forces we know from history. Things might have been subtly different- but we have no reason to believe they would have been grossly so.

Edited March 30, 2012 by selek1

[Avatar4321]

Personally, I don't believe in destiny or divinity as most people here do, but from a pragmatic point of view I think the survival of the church may have required Joseph Smith Jr.'s early death.

Over the course of his life he implemented (or, respectfully, The Lord implemented) many relatively radical policies of the church through what he considered to be revelations. Some of these changes caused instability in terms of the safety of The Saints and, in some cases, doubt by members. JSJ's death, in many ways, signified the closing of the establishment period of the church.

Once JSJ died, the church entered a more static state in terms of policy (I hope the abbreviated name isn't disrespectful). Please correct me if I'm incorrect in this assertion, but it seems to me Brigham Young wasn't all that comfortable with the idea of being the Prophet initially, though he understood the need for the church to have a President and was quite capable to fill the administrative role required for the church to continue. If JSJ was required to start the church, then BY was required to bring it to a state of continuance. He (as it seems to me) was better suited for the task of moving the flock out West and dealing with the struggles of keeping the organization running that JSJ would have been. In order for the church to survive, I believe both needed to play the roles they did.

JSJ's death also gave the anti's of the Midwest a victory in their fight against the LDS church. I'm in no way saying that "victory" was a good or deserved thing. What I'm saying is it gave the conflict some finality which enabled some of the people persecuting the LDS folks to move on to other events. While persecution continued, everything I have read has indicated it simmered down quite significantly after JSR's death. It wasn't eradicated, but the heat of the debate was growing exponentially during JSJ's life. While the Saints were persecuted during the trek to Utah and afterwards, It seems to me having a "boogey man" in the form of JSJ for the antis to chase could have made a situation that was already delicate much worse.

Lastly, the death of JSJ forced the church to stand on its own. Had he lived to a much older age the belief that the church couldn't have continued without him might have been more cemented into the minds of the saints and, possibly, led to the church falling apart.

I know we're dealing with a lot of "what ifs" and conjecture in this discussion. I'm just saying from the standpoint of looking at what needed to happen for the church to become as strong as it is today, I don't know if the institution would be as solid if JSJ hadn't died so young.

For the record. I do not, in any way, condone or take any satisfaction in his murder. I'm simply trying to illustrate for those here that do believe in destiny that it may be the only way for the church to survive was with the death of Joseph Smith Jr.

Certainly something to ponder. You made some interesting points.

[AddamS]

The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that it assumes- without providing any evidence to support that assumption- that Joseph's continued involvement would have been detrimental a/o destabilizing.

In many respects, it strikes me as a rather shallow tautology and is predicated on naturalistic assumptions and caricatures of the individuals involved.

The argument assumes that Joseph would have clung bitterly to power- and implies that only his death prevented Joseph from becoming an Illinois Napoleon.

I never said his continued involvement would have necessarily lead to destabilization. What I was trying to say is that the "circling of the wagons" so to speak that became necessary after JSJ's murder may have, in some ways, made the church more stable going forward than it was at the time of his death. I never implied a prediction the church would have faltered in any way if JSJ had lived to see establishment in Utah. I believe the outcome you describe is entirely plausible as well. All we can do in regard to the discussion is postulate.

I'm sorry if I have misrepreseneted what I was getting at. I did not mean to imply JSJ would have clung to power at all costs. I don't really see how this assertion was made but if it was I apologize for not being clear.

Both assumptions are contrary to what we know about Joseph and those around him, and LDS beliefs about how the Lord governs and watches over his Church.

If memory serves (and I cheerfully admit that it may not), Joseph had already begun divesting, rather than consolidating his power. Part of the reason for the turmoil in Nauvoo was that Joseph had begun delegating authority to others- including to men who ultimately proved less-than-worthy of his trust and their high calling.

The internal contention and conspiracies among the Saints arose when those individuals were exposed and removed- and began personal crusades to retain their power and authority at the expense of the Church as a whole.

Agreed. There were forces within the church working against it. I think one could argue that the murder of JSJ may have even helped define a clear line in the sand as to who was truly with The Saints and who was against them. Separating the wheat from the chaffe, so to speak, would have helped the church retain identity and strength.

The argument is further contradicted by Joseph's aborted flight west to the Rocky Mountains. Before packing his horse to leave, Joseph had organized a structure that he felt would be self sustaining in his absence- and with (comparatively) clear lines of succession.

This is, of course, the very same organization which governed the Church after Joseph's untimely murder.

Were Joseph the power-mad dictator that critics pretend, he would not have dared to leave, lest his sway over the faithful be weakened.

Modern-day examples of this phenomenon include David Koresh, James Jones, and Warren Jeffs. Each of these men (and hundreds more just like them) historically keep their victims under very tight control- preferably almost totally isolated from the world at large.

Nauvoo of the period was nothing like Hilldale, UT, Eldorado, TX, or Colorado City, It was one of the three largest cities in Illinois, and every bit as cosmopolitan as St. Louis or Chicago.

Nauvoo was an open city, a hub of culture and commerce- trading with major towns and cities all along the river, and welcomed visitors from every corner of the world.

The idea and implication that Joseph was power-mad or grasping is simply not evident from his conduct or from the testimony of those who knew him. Nor is it indicated by the success of the organization which he helped found.

Again, I don't believe I have inferred Joseph Smith Jr was a "power-mad dictator". I would certainly agree that in many ways, the 'Mormon Territory' for lack of a better term was a much better place to live for everyone than many places in the US at that time.

I am also ambivalent about the idea that Joseph's murder acted in any way to assauge the blood lust of the Illinois and Missouri mobs (who were, in all-too-many-cases, one and the same).

The predations against the Mormons paused for only a few days at most- when the fear ran rampant that the Nauvoo Legion would rise and exact a bloody vengeance on the country side.

As soon as the Legion stacked arms at the order of the most craven, cowardly, and corrupt politician in Illinois history (at least until January 3, 2005)- the predations resumed unhindered in either ferocity or frequency.

The Mormons bought themselves a small respite with their agreement to withdraw from Illinois, but even that was short-lived, and mobs and predations forced the Mormons were in the dead of winter, months ahead of schedule.

That predations were mitigated between the death of Joseph Smith and the Reed Smoot hearings is beyond question: but the idea that the bloodlust of the mobocrats was slaked is ludicrous on its face.

The two mitigating factors were distance and relative population.

For the most part, the Mormons left the worst of the mobocrats to their wallow in Illinois and Missouri (ironically, areas that suffered the worst predations during the Civil War).

Those few who followed (or were appointed to staff the territorial government as political payoffs) were corrupt- but not completly stupid. Most mobocrats are cowards- and being outnumbered a hundred to one by the Mormons- were careful to keep their predations within the confines of their "official authority". Contention between the Saints and the territorial government arose only when corruption and abuse became intolerable- and it was this same class of corrupt plutocrats who perjured themselves in order to instigate the inaptly named "Utah War"- known more accurately as "Buchanan's Blunder".

Those few Saints who remained behind in Illinois bought their peace through an 18th century American version of dhimmism, or by marrying outside the faith (as even Emma Smith was called to do).

The fact that the remaining few Saints no longer constituted an influential political bloc erased the real root of contention between the Mormons and the old settlers.

For all the excuses given about polygamy, unfair practices, and the burgeoning theocracy- the crisis evaporated the moment the old guard became secure in their own power and den of corruption.

You are obviously more well-versed in the specific history of the era than I am and I appreciate the information. I hope my post did not imply the remaining Saints had an easy time of the situation. I know there were multiple instances of inhumane actions against them post JSJ's death.

What I'm saying is JSJ gave antis a specific target to focus their vitriol on. Please don't confuse the following analogy as me representing a link in character between the examples; but much in the same way that support for action in Afghanistan has dwindled since the death of Bin Ladin it seems to me support for persecuting The Saints would dwindle sooner than later with the loss of the Churches "head". Again, this is no comparison here between JSJ and BL as people. I'm specifically looking at another instance where a group of people is targeted and the main figurehead representing those people is killed.

I will agree that Joseph's martyrdom indelibly shaped the face of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In the same vein, his murder inescapably shaped the history of western expansion in the United States. His murder, by extension, has reached out to shape not only what the Church became, but also what we became as a nation and a people.

I think we totally agree here. Outside of Utah, there isn't much consideration to the LDS Church's role in the expansion of the US in public school history classes. Like The Church or not, denial by omission in this case is just plain wrong.

But that does not support or suggest the idea that Joseph's murder was a seminal event in either the Church's survival or success.

Had he lived- and faced the same evil choices that the Church faced in Illinois- he might very well have led the Saints westward himself, but what of it?

Yes, he may have. Everything may have ended up nearly exactly how it is now. All we can discuss in this regard is what may have happened. I don't know if there are any 100% certain outcomes we can cite in this regard.

Utah and the West would still have been shaped by the same forces we know from history. Things might have been subtly different- but we have no reason to believe they would have been grossly so.

Again... who knows what could have happened?

[Cobalt-70]

Regarding the alleged letter, see Richard L.Anderson's essential discussion of the sources in the latter half of the linked article, including eye-witness reports by John Taylor, who, unlike Stout who was in Nauvoo, and Stenhouse, who was in England, was in Carthage with Joseph Smith:

http://maxwellinstit...107&chapid=1211

I should think that an eyewitness who insists that Joseph did not send any such letter counts far more than gossip about what could have happened.

Anderson also observes that the continued trust given Dunham is consistent with acceptance of his loyalty, and not with general knowledge bestowed by someone waving around a letter found in the street, proving that Dunham had refused to come to Joseph Smith's aid. And Anderson shows the kind of rumors circulating around Carthage even before the martyrdom. Pahoran is correct on this. The notion of the letter is inconsistent with eye witness testimony and with the historical behavior of the principle figures.

There are a few problems with Anderson's analysis. First, hHe ignores the jailor's comment that Smith's first reaction to the approach of the Carthage Greys was that it was the Nauvoo Legion coming to save him. This statement was made about a month after the event, whereas Taylor's reminiscence was over a decade after the events. To the extent that the two recollections disagree (and I don't think they do, as discussed below), the jailor's fresher recollection is more reliable.

Plus, there clearly was some sort of letter containing orders which Willard Richards made a copy of on the morning of the killing, because the letter is mentioned in HC. However, the the letter itself is missing from HC, even though other earlier letters to Dunham were included, and the copy of the letter has apparently been destroyed (unless it is sitting somewhere in the First Presidency Vault). That implies that Willard Richards did not think that whatever was in the letter was flattering to Smith. If this was the last letter that Smith wrote, or one of the last two or three, you would think a historian such as Willard Richards would normally want to include it in the church history. I agree that the Stout and Stenhouse sources are weak on their own, but it's the HC reference that gives them more credibility than they otherwise would have.

Taylor's reminiscences are likely accurate as to content, but possibly not so accurate as to timing, given that they were over a decade old when first written down. Clearly, according to Taylor, Smith was thinking carefully during his time in Carthage about several alternatives for escaping, including the possibility of using the Nauvoo Legion at least for his protection. When Nauvoo Legion Colonel Stephen Markham left the jail and returned to Nauvoo in the early afternoon, Taylor says (in HC) that he was later informed that Markam went to Nauvoo to "raise a company of men" (clearly, from the Legion) to protect Smith. Why would Col. Markham have done this if Smith had said to those present in the jail that he decided he didn't need the Legion to protect him?

Also, according to Taylor, Smith refused Taylor's offer to leave the jail and bring back the Legion within five hours to spring him some time before the visit of Cyrus H. Wheelock. Wheelock was the man who gave them news about how precarious their position was, being at the "tender mercies of the Carthage Greys," as Taylor put it. Smith was so alarmed by what he heard that he accepted Wheelock's offer of a handgun. If Smith believed that he could trust the legal process before then, he certainly didn't believe it afterwards. At that point, Smith knew that Ford had left Carthage, and that there was a good chance a mob was going to attack. Taylor notes in an understatement they were left with "very unpleasant feelings." He could easily have changed his mind about getting protection. Taylor notes that "numerous friends" and lawyers came and went on June 27, so many that Taylor could not remember all their names, and one of them could have left to deliver the Dunham letter.

[Cobalt-70]

Oh yes, they treated them so very well. According to Dan Jones, Frank Worrell, the officer in charge of the Carthage Greys guarding the jail, told him:

"We have had too much trouble to bring old Joe here to let him ever escape alive, and unless you want to die with him, you had better leave before sundown; and you are not a damned bit better than him for taking his part, and you'll see that I can prophesy better than old Joe, for neither he nor his brother, nor anyone who will remain with them, will see the sun set today."

Such friendly fellows, those Carthage Greys!

I was referring to the jailors, not the Carthage Greys. The jailors were just there doing their job, and by all accounts, they treated the prisoners well.

That's not the point. The point is that the mob thought the Legion was coming, despite the fact that they could not possibly have been privy to the contents of any secret communications between Joseph and Dunham. In fact, Joseph did write two letters to Dunham on the 22nd and 24th of June. These were what Richards made copies of on the 26th, but they dealt with other matters.

Why would Willard Richards by copying a letter, on June 27, that was sent on June 22 or 24? Did Dunham send the earlier letters back to the jail? Richards was the church historian, and it was his duty to copy important letters before they were sent, so that there would be a copy for church records.

[selek1]

I never said his continued involvement would have necessarily lead to destabilization.

I appreciate the clarification. The idea seemed implicit in your argument- but that might well be more the fault of the reader than the speaker.

Yet, by remaining civil- both are edified. Whodathunk?

What I was trying to say is that the "circling of the wagons" so to speak that became necessary after JSJ's murder may have, in some ways, made the church more stable going forward than it was at the time of his death.

I don't think this can be questioned. As you stated below, the "clear line in the sand" clearly divided those who's faith was built on stone from those built on sand. Though perhaps that, too, is not quite fair.

The crucible in which those souls were tried is beyond anything in my (and I suspect our general) experience. Those who remained with the Saints were certainly it's most dedicated- or desperate- adherents.

All that can be truly said of those who did not is that they were not. I don't think we can judge them as a whole. Specific individuals who acted in specific (and less than honorable) ways are, of course, fair game.

I never implied a prediction the church would have faltered in any way if JSJ had lived to see establishment in Utah. I believe the outcome you describe is entirely plausible as well. All we can do in regard to the discussion is postulate.

As a

quibble, I believe you mean "speculate".

Pos-tu-late [v. pos-chuh-leyt;]

1. to ask, demand, or claim.

2. to claim or assume the existence or truth of, especially as a basis for reasoning or arguing.

3. to assume without proof, or as self-evident; take for granted.

4. Mathematics, Logic . to assume as a postulate.

I'm sorry if I have misrepreseneted what I was getting at. I did not mean to imply JSJ would have clung to power at all costs. I don't really see how this assertion was made but if it was I apologize for not being clear.

Again, I believe the idea was implicit in your argument- though I admit that having dealt with far too many less-than-forthright arguments on these boards, the fault might have been mine. I might have read something into your argument that you did not intend.

By the same token, examining unwarranted assumptions and wild speculation (on either side) serves to expose the weaknesses and unintended consequences of our statements.

This is a good thing, no?

Agreed. There were forces within the church working against it. I think one could argue that the murder of JSJ may have even helped define a clear line in the sand as to who was truly with The Saints and who was against them. Separating the wheat from the chaffe, so to speak, would have helped the church retain identity and strength.

Unquestionably so.

You are obviously more well-versed in the specific history of the era than I am and I appreciate the information. I hope my post did not imply the remaining Saints had an easy time of the situation. I know there were multiple instances of inhumane actions against them post JSJ's death.

I certainly didn't take it that way. It is beyond dispute, however, that the Mormon super majorities in their territories served as a deterrent to any who'd hoped to repeat the Missouri and Illinois predations.

What I'm saying is JSJ gave antis a specific target to focus their vitriol on. Please don't confuse the following analogy as me representing a link in character between the examples; but much in the same way that support for action in Afghanistan has dwindled since the death of Bin Ladin it seems to me support for persecuting The Saints would dwindle sooner than later with the loss of the Churches "head". Again, this is no comparison here between JSJ and BL as people. I'm specifically looking at another instance where a group of people is targeted and the main figurehead representing those people is killed.

I agree that this is a valid comparison, in that you are comparing circumstances rather than motivation or ideologies.

One must be careful about such things on this board- the more hyperbolic examples will result in moderator discipline. Sometimes, IMO, they can be a bit overzealous in that regard- but better that they err on the side of caution.

I believe your example is firmly "in the green", but I will quibble on one specific note: I believe that the dwindling support for the war in Afghanistan is driven more by the fact that our putative allies in that country are corrupt and untrustworhy, and that we are making little or no real progress forward.

A counter example to your argument would be the death of Admiral Yamamoto during World War II. Yamamoto- the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack- was killed in April 1943, yet the war dragged on until August 1945. Yes, the snake had lost one of its many (and a particularly despised) head- but it remained a potent enemy.

By the same token, any hopes that the Saints would be broken or disbanded by the death of Joseph (and I have no doubt that such hopes existed) were swiftly dashed. The predations paused only long enough for the State to disarm the Mormons, at which point the resumed in their full power and fury.

Those predations and that agenda continued in Illinois until the Mormons were removed as a people and broken as a power bloc.

Ironically, the anti-Mormon sentiment evidenced today (on everything from Prop 8 to the Presidential election) and most of the attacks on Mitt Romney arise from that same core: that discomfort and fear among the Old Guard (be they radical homosexuals or radical Evangelicals) the Mormons will be able to legitimately effect their political will just like any other citizen.

There is an old saw that goes "Don't steal. The government hates competition."

The same adage applies to other political blocs who see their grasp on power threatened by a burgeoning "Mormon hegemony",