How Can I Respond To A Friend's Criticism Of Joseph Smith?

[phaedrus ut]

Your non believing friend has obviously studied church history and clearly knows it better than Glenn Beck.  The Nauvoo period for church history is one of the most interesting times in the church, specifically for Joseph Smith.  Rather than look for answers from people here, let your curiosity be the motivation to read on the subject yourself. 

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[halconero]

Luke 23:1-4

Then the whole assembly of them arose and brought him before Pilate. They brought charges against him, saying, “We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king.”

Pilate asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” He said to him in reply, “You say so.”

Pilate then addressed the chief priests and the crowds, “I find this man not guilty.”

13-16

Pilate then summoned the chief priests, the rulers, and the people and said to them, “You brought this man to me and accused him of inciting the people to revolt. I have conducted my investigation in your presence and have not found this man guilty of the charges you have brought against him, nor did Herod, for he sent him back to us. So no capital crime has been committed by him. Therefore I shall have him flogged and then release him.”

The problem is that the Gospel accounts of Jesus' trials vary in significant ways. Luke and Acts as a whole is very Pro-Roman, Pro-Greek and somewhat anti-Jewish. John portrays an anti-Sanhedrin, but pro-Jewish populace view, the Pilate in Mark is apathetic to Jesus' plight. It's complicated.

[canard78]

We used to BRT all the time...

What's that called now?

 

HTST (I think)

 

Something like "How to start teaching" - similar principle of discovering their values and interests.

[eddie]

The problem is that the Gospel accounts of Jesus' trials vary in significant ways. Luke and Acts as a whole is very Pro-Roman, Pro-Greek and somewhat anti-Jewish. John portrays an anti-Sanhedrin, but pro-Jewish populace view, the Pilate in Mark is apathetic to Jesus' plight. It's complicated.

Exactly. Even among apostles the narrative of the same event changes. That is what happened in the case of the Nauvoo Expositer.

The biggest point in this case was Jane Law's story versus that of Joseph Smith. One claimed adultery was committed and the other claimed advances had been made. Both denied the other's testimony, and William believed his wife. He then decided Smith was a fallen prophet, and intended to expose him through the newspaper.

In any case he eventually moved to Wisconsin with his wife, claimed authority in the Church for himself. His church didn't last long and died out.

So the real question is, which side showed the fruits and kept advancing forward, and which did not? Tough to argue with the results of who maintained the authority of the Restoration by looking at a 15 million member church vs a defunct one.

[ALarson]

Exactly. Even among apostles the narrative of the same event changes. That is what happened in the case of the Nauvoo Expositer.

The biggest point in this case was Jane Law's story versus that of Joseph Smith. One claimed adultery was committed and the other claimed advances had been made. Both denied the other's testimony, and William believed his wife. He then decided Smith was a fallen prophet, and intended to expose him through the newspaper.

 

William Law was against polygamy period.  It had more to it than just what involved his wife.  I'm not defending what Law did, but if you have not read the Nauvoo Expositor (you can read it online or order a copy of it), you should as it's interesting reading.  

[drums12]

I think this may be difficult to disprove to your friend's satisfaction. The fact is that Joseph Smith wielded enormous power in Nauvoo. At his death, he was simultaneously the Church president, mayor, chief justice, and commander-in-chief of the Nauvoo Legion. As Richard Bushman and Dean Jessee forthrightly acknowledge in their Joseph Smith Papers essay, "Joseph Smith and His Papers: An Introduction": "[Joseph Smith's] acquisition of the major offices in the city, the courts, and the militia, as well as in the church, opened him to charges of megalomania." He was also running for president of the United States and had established a secret shadow government (the Council of Fifty). Some of his followers were referring to him as "president pro tem of the world" [source]. So I can see how some people might view Joseph's behavior as grandiose.

No question he had enormous power.  I'm currently reading Quinn's BYU Studies essay from 1980 about the Council of Fifty.  From what I've read so far, I'm not sure I'd call it a shadow government.  Of course I'm no expert, and Quinn's material may be outdated. 

[eddie]

William Law was against polygamy period. It had more to it than just what involved his wife. I'm not defending what Law did, but if you have not read the Nauvoo Expositor (you can read it online or order a copy of it), you should as it's interesting reading.

Many were against polygamy, including Joseph Smith, his journals talked about how much he didn't like it. (As was Brigham Young.)

The allegations of his wife pushed him over the edge.

As I say, polygamy is a hard pill to swallow, it was in 1840 as well. However, it was commanded at the time, and many practiced it as a leap of faith and obedience to the Lord.

[drums12]

I think he thinks he's Joseph incarnate.

I hardly know of any case where Joseph Smith endorsed pre-emptive wholesale slaughter.

[wenglund]

I have a dear friend who I agree with politically on most things (the purpose of this thread is not political).  He left the Church about ten years ago, and although he generally abstains from open criticism of the Church and its leaders (at least around me and on facebook), he posted the following today, commenting on Glenn Beck's recent speech at Liberty University in which Beck apparently spoke about Joseph Smith's martyrdom.  I've not listened to or read Beck's speech, as it is not the focus of this thread. 

 

I don't mean to upbraid Beck for the commitment he displays to his faith, but his treatment of Joseph Smith in this address displays a gift for artful dishonesty that would earn Jay Carney's envy.  Contrary to what Beck says in this speech, Joseph Smith wasn't arrested and sent to Carthage Jail for allegedly stealing a stove. At the time, Smith was the literal dictator of Nauvoo -- President of the LDS Church, Mayor and Chief Magistrate of the City Government, candidate for the US Presidency, and secretly crowned "Prophet, Priest and King over Israel on Earth." He was literally untouchable in Nauvoo, which is one reason why his Second Counselor William Law - a devout and faithful Mormon - published a dissident newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor, which objected to Smith's dictatorial consolidation of power and his illicit practice of polygamy, which included an overture by Smith to Law's wife (her rejection eventually led to Law's excommunication for "apostasy").

The Nauvoo City Council, a body that was an instrument of Smith's will, "ordered" him to suppress the Expositor as a "public nuisance." A mob organized by Smith under color of "law" destroyed the printing press, prompting Law and his associates to flee in fear for their lives. This led to a warrant being issued for Smith's arrest -- and he responded by attempting to flee the jurisdiction, only to be shamed by his wife into returning and submitting to arrest.

Smith, his brother Hyrum, Willard Richards, and John Taylor were incarcerated at Carthage, where they were set upon by a masked mob. Joseph and Hyrum were murdered; John Taylor was shot, and his life may have been saved by a pocket watch that deflected a round that may have killed him.

Joseph Smith didn't die as a martyr; he had been smuggled a firearm that he quite properly used in an attempt to save his life and those of his friends. He was in jail because of his own violent and lawless acts, and those who had taken him into custody were criminally derelict in failing to protect him from mob violence until he could face trial for the charges against him.

 

I'm not very familiar with the events in question, but it seems my friend has taken the most damning possible interpretations of Joseph's conduct in Nauvoo.  How can I respond in a cordial, intelligent manner?  Are his conclusions valid (not necessarily correct, but reasonable)? 

 

It is more than a little difficult to be a dictator when the office of Mayor is an elected position, is under the direction of the City Council, and the City Council is subject to the votes of its multiple elected members (I believe there were 18 at the time), and the President of the Council in this case wasn't the Mayor, nor was the Mayor the Major General of the Nauvoo Legion. (See HERE)

 

I am not suggesting that Joseph didn't have significant influence. He did. However, it is a substantial over-reach to consider him a dictator of Nauvoo,

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

Edited May 2, 2014 by wenglund

[ALarson]

Many were against polygamy, including Joseph Smith, his journals talked about how much he didn't like it. (As was Brigham Young.)

The allegations of his wife pushed him over the edge.

As I say, polygamy is a hard pill to swallow, it was in 1840 as well. However, it was commanded at the time, and many practiced it as a leap of faith and obedience to the Lord.

I don't blame Law for believing his wife.  Who knows what really happened there?  But, Law knew that Joseph had approached other men's wives and had even had some of these wives sealed to him.  The evidence was there and Law believed his wife.  

Edited May 2, 2014 by ALarson

[MichelleD]

Many were against polygamy, including Joseph Smith, his journals talked about how much he didn't like it. (As was Brigham Young.)

The allegations of his wife pushed him over the edge.

As I say, polygamy is a hard pill to swallow, it was in 1840 as well. However, it was commanded at the time, and many practiced it as a leap of faith and obedience to the Lord.

Since Joseph had 30+ wives at this time and many were polyandrous marriages, it's easy to see why Wliiam Law believed what his wife told him. That doesn't justify what WL did, but it does explain why he believed his wife's version of what occurred.

[pogi]

Why not just agree with your friend that Glen Beck misrepresented some of the circumstances of Joseph Smith's death?  There's no need to defend the man (Beck). 

 

On my mission we called this "Building a Relationship of Trust" by "Building on Common Beliefs."

 

I agree that this is the best approach.  If you want to break down the walls of defensiveness, find areas that you agree on first.  You don't want to come off as defending Beck's statement anyway, it is obviously absurd.  You could then acknowledge the points that he makes that are true.  Say something like this - "though there is some truth to what you say, I still hold Joseph as a prophet of God who was killed in cold blood by heartless and weak men." 

Edited May 2, 2014 by pogi

[why me]

I would buy him Rough Stone Rolling and read it with him and have a discussion about the chapters. This is the best way to do it. Study systematically with your friend. Joseph was an amazing guy. He accomplished much in his short life. He was a true revolutionary. Also, he managed to find 11 witnesses to see the book of mormon, 3 of them were shown by an angel and none of them denied their testimony, even on their deathbeds.

 

But a study moment with your friend would do it.

[why me]

I agree that this is the best approach.  If you want to break down the walls of defensiveness, find areas that you agree on first.  You don't want to come off as defending Beck's statement anyway, it is obviously absurd.  You could then acknowledge the points that he makes that are true.  Say something like this - "though there is some truth to what you say, I still hold Joseph as a prophet of God who was killed in cold blood by heartless and weak men." 

One would need a good biography about Joseph Smith and read it with a questioning mind. Looking at Rough Stone Rolling and having a great discussion about the interpretations and ideas in that book would be a great learning tool.

[eddie]

I don't blame Law for believing his wife. Who knows what really happened there? But, Law knew that Joseph had approached other men's wives and had even had some of these wives sealed to him. The evidence was there and Law believed his wife.

Yes, such was the case with Thomas Marsh, Orson Pratt, and many women whose husbands became outraged as well and they followed them. In all of the cases, the ultimate victim was the individual.

As for Joseph Smith's dealings to other women that were married but not sealed, there is no evidence any of those ever were conjugal. (Many of their husbands were present at the sealing ceremonies.) In fact while it is believed some outside of Emma did have physical relations with him, they haven't found any descendants outside of his 9 with Emma. (Obviously fertility wasn't an issue.)

So long story of this is Law assumed he had the authority when he considered Smith a fallen prophet, which was a part of his apostasy. And yes, the High Council of Nauvoo was considering a church trial of Jane Law's alleged misconduct.

[Walden]

I hear all the time that Joseph wasn't perfect, and this seems to be a great example of his fallibility. Destroying the Expositor was clearly wrong, but somewhat understandable given the history the Saints had gone through and certainty didn't merit the response taken by the violent mob.

I think that your view that a mob response to the destruction of the printing press in Nauvoo lacks merit is clearly a case of 21st century perspectivism. Certainly nobody deserved to be murdered over the event, but a heightened sense of paranoia, leading to a mob response, is understandable. If you can provide an excuse for the destruction of the printing press as you have done, and which I would not argue either given the history that the Saints had recently endured, surely you can see how the other side might also have a case.

 

Remember that in 1844, the United States was still a very young nation, one which only 70 years earlier had waged a war against an oppressive government who had maintained tight controls over the press, over the financial institutions and over the political systems of this nation. Residents of Nauvoo and the surrounding areas likely had parents or grandparents who had experienced such oppression and were raised with stories of that time. Thus, the rights, freedoms and priviledges granted by the Constitution were not just some ancient history to be taken for granted, but seen as a real and substantial victory in this country's perculiar "experiment" in freedom and liberty.

 

Now, you put a figure like Joseph Smith into such a fray....here is a man who, in the eyes of many (particulalry those outside the faith), was attempting to create a theocracy with it's own militia (the Nauvoo Legion being the largest militia in the US, with Smith as the commandeer), a burgeoining "city-state" with Smith as mayor, and a new and peculiar (some might say blasphemous) religion, with Smith as Prophet, Seer and Revelator of a religion that practiced polygamy and maintained exclusive, mystical temple rituals....you can see why some were growing nervous regarding Smith's power and influence over the region, no?

 

And again, one must consider the implications in the mind of a mid-19th century US citizen regarding the destruction of a printing press. It's not like there were other avenues, such as radio, television or the internet for the dissemination of information. The destruction of a printing press was likely seen as a threat to the tenets of free speech itself, a lawless gesture intended to stifle dissent against government...the very same principles that these people's fathers and grandfathers might have fought against 70 years earlier. It's not like Smith's mob was destroying a washing machine, they were destroying an instrument of free speech and conduit of information.

 

Surely if you can excuse the destruction of the printing press as "somewhat understandable given the history the Saints had gone through," then you can sympathize with the formation of a mob in response to that destruction, considering the history that the young nation had gone through in securing those freedoms of press and free speech. 

 

Again, nobody in their right mind would condone the subsequent murders that followed, but to excuse the Saints behavior in destroying the printing press while being aghast at the formation of a mob in response to that destruction seems self-serving.   

Edited May 2, 2014 by Walden

[ERayR]

I have a dear friend who I agree with politically on most things (the purpose of this thread is not political).  He left the Church about ten years ago, and although he generally abstains from open criticism of the Church and its leaders (at least around me and on facebook), he posted the following today, commenting on Glenn Beck's recent speech at Liberty University in which Beck apparently spoke about Joseph Smith's martyrdom.  I've not listened to or read Beck's speech, as it is not the focus of this thread. 

 

I don't mean to upbraid Beck for the commitment he displays to his faith, but his treatment of Joseph Smith in this address displays a gift for artful dishonesty that would earn Jay Carney's envy.  Contrary to what Beck says in this speech, Joseph Smith wasn't arrested and sent to Carthage Jail for allegedly stealing a stove. At the time, Smith was the literal dictator of Nauvoo -- President of the LDS Church, Mayor and Chief Magistrate of the City Government, candidate for the US Presidency, and secretly crowned "Prophet, Priest and King over Israel on Earth." He was literally untouchable in Nauvoo, which is one reason why his Second Counselor William Law - a devout and faithful Mormon - published a dissident newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor, which objected to Smith's dictatorial consolidation of power and his illicit practice of polygamy, which included an overture by Smith to Law's wife (her rejection eventually led to Law's excommunication for "apostasy").

The Nauvoo City Council, a body that was an instrument of Smith's will, "ordered" him to suppress the Expositor as a "public nuisance." A mob organized by Smith under color of "law" destroyed the printing press, prompting Law and his associates to flee in fear for their lives. This led to a warrant being issued for Smith's arrest -- and he responded by attempting to flee the jurisdiction, only to be shamed by his wife into returning and submitting to arrest.

Smith, his brother Hyrum, Willard Richards, and John Taylor were incarcerated at Carthage, where they were set upon by a masked mob. Joseph and Hyrum were murdered; John Taylor was shot, and his life may have been saved by a pocket watch that deflected a round that may have killed him.

Joseph Smith didn't die as a martyr; he had been smuggled a firearm that he quite properly used in an attempt to save his life and those of his friends. He was in jail because of his own violent and lawless acts, and those who had taken him into custody were criminally derelict in failing to protect him from mob violence until he could face trial for the charges against him.

 

I'm not very familiar with the events in question, but it seems my friend has taken the most damning possible interpretations of Joseph's conduct in Nauvoo.  How can I respond in a cordial, intelligent manner?  Are his conclusions valid (not necessarily correct, but reasonable)? 

 

Unless you enjoy arguing with him/her your best bet is to calmly tell him you do not agree with his understanding of the subject and this is one of those topics that from now on will be off limits and you will not engage in any more conversations with him on it.  If you don't you will either become disaffected with the friendship or with the church.  If you continue ro listen to him his dissatisfaction will wear on you much more than it it were from strangers and anonymous internet posters.

[pogi]

One would need a good biography about Joseph Smith and read it with a questioning mind. Looking at Rough Stone Rolling and having a great discussion about the interpretations and ideas in that book would be a great learning tool.

 

I agree that could be helpful if he is open to it.  It would be helpful to hear it from a more neutral if not positive tone.  Sometimes it just helps to know that there are members who know the same history that you know and still believe.  He doesn't have to be wrong (regarding historical facts) for us to be right. 

[ERayR]

I hardly know of any case where Joseph Smith endorsed pre-emptive wholesale slaughter.

 

Who does.  If you are speaking of Beck I hardly ever listen to him but in all honesty I have never heard him advocate anything like that.

[wenglund]

I don't blame Law for believing his wife.  Who knows what really happened there?  But, Law knew that Joseph had approached other men's wives and had even had some of these wives sealed to him.  The evidence was there and Law believed his wife.  

 

Yet, Law joined forces against Joseph with the likes of Robert D. Foster, who had been excommunicated in April of 1844 for adultery. Selective outrage?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-.

[Bob Crockett]

I have a dear friend who I agree with politically on most things (the purpose of this thread is not political).  He left the Church about ten years ago, and although he generally abstains from open criticism of the Church and its leaders (at least around me and on facebook), he posted the following today, commenting on Glenn Beck's recent speech at Liberty University in which Beck apparently spoke about Joseph Smith's martyrdom.  I've not listened to or read Beck's speech, as it is not the focus of this thread. 

 

I don't mean to upbraid Beck for the commitment he displays to his faith, but his treatment of Joseph Smith in this address displays a gift for artful dishonesty that would earn Jay Carney's envy.  Contrary to what Beck says in this speech, Joseph Smith wasn't arrested and sent to Carthage Jail for allegedly stealing a stove. At the time, Smith was the literal dictator of Nauvoo -- President of the LDS Church, Mayor and Chief Magistrate of the City Government, candidate for the US Presidency, and secretly crowned "Prophet, Priest and King over Israel on Earth." He was literally untouchable in Nauvoo, which is one reason why his Second Counselor William Law - a devout and faithful Mormon - published a dissident newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor, which objected to Smith's dictatorial consolidation of power and his illicit practice of polygamy, which included an overture by Smith to Law's wife (her rejection eventually led to Law's excommunication for "apostasy").

The Nauvoo City Council, a body that was an instrument of Smith's will, "ordered" him to suppress the Expositor as a "public nuisance." A mob organized by Smith under color of "law" destroyed the printing press, prompting Law and his associates to flee in fear for their lives. This led to a warrant being issued for Smith's arrest -- and he responded by attempting to flee the jurisdiction, only to be shamed by his wife into returning and submitting to arrest.

Smith, his brother Hyrum, Willard Richards, and John Taylor were incarcerated at Carthage, where they were set upon by a masked mob. Joseph and Hyrum were murdered; John Taylor was shot, and his life may have been saved by a pocket watch that deflected a round that may have killed him.

Joseph Smith didn't die as a martyr; he had been smuggled a firearm that he quite properly used in an attempt to save his life and those of his friends. He was in jail because of his own violent and lawless acts, and those who had taken him into custody were criminally derelict in failing to protect him from mob violence until he could face trial for the charges against him.

 

I'm not very familiar with the events in question, but it seems my friend has taken the most damning possible interpretations of Joseph's conduct in Nauvoo.  How can I respond in a cordial, intelligent manner?  Are his conclusions valid (not necessarily correct, but reasonable)? 

I'm preparing a paper for publication on some of this but I haven't touched the research for a couple of years, but I can give you my best assessment:

 

1.  In order to attract settlement in a difficult area, the Illinois Legislature (with John C. Bennett's keen assistance) granted "charter" status to the City of Nauvoo, which at the time was fairly unusual.  A charter city, with limited exception, was not under the control of the Legislature.  A charter city could suspend habeas corpus writs and could declare martial law.

 

2.  At the time of the Expositor's suppression, the First Amendment did not apply to charter cities or states.  (The fact the Charter used boilerplate to say it would abide by the US Constitution is meaningless; it was patriotic language used in other charters; neither the feds nor the states enforced the constitution against local government.)  The CIty Council ordered the destruction of the press due to the fears that it would lead to increased instability and mob violence. Joseph Smith was being constantly harrassed by writs issued by the State of Missouri against him, for jail break (Liberty Jail) and the assassination attempt by Rockwell on Governor Boggs.  (The charges against Rockwell were later dismissed but that didn't seem to help Joseph Smith, who was hundreds of miles away.)  Although there may have been state-level constitutional protections of the press (for Illinois, I think there was but today I can't remember), judge-made law was woefully underdeveloped and, in reality, there was very little protection for an obnoxious press before the Civil War.  What shocks and offends us today about the treatment of the Expositor was not so shocking then and had lots of precedent.  I'm not saying it was a wise or proper decision; rather, Joseph Smtih and the City Council didn't just make this remedy up.

 

3.  Joseph Smith, and only Joseph Smith, was arrested for "riot" in relation to the destruction of the press.  However, as prosecuting authorities realized that the CIty Council had the power to do what it did, and that riot was a bailable offense, Joseph Smith was charged with "treason", a non-bailable offense.   He was charged with treason because he declared martial law, even though he had the power to do so.  Governor Ford in his memoirs admitted that the charge of treason was wrong, and that Joseph Smith properly declared martial law. So, he was completely innocent of the specific charge that kept him incarcerated.  And, under the law, he wouldn't have been properly convicted of riot or destruction of private property because the charter gave him sufficient police power to do such acts.  (Of course, the Eastern press roundly criticized him for this.)

 

4.  Joseph Smith surrendered himself to Ford on the ground that he would be protected.  However, once incarcerated at Carthage, Ford broke his promise and withdrew state troops in favor of the Carthage Grey.

 

5.  In terms of Joseph Smith being a "martyr" or not, because he was really armed, there's been a lot written about that.  It seems to me that because self-defense is a complete justification to firing a weapon at somebody, Joseph Smith should not be criticized for using that defense.  If he had died using a bat to protect his children, the concept wouldn't have been any different.  But, because it was a gun and he was protecting not children but adults, I guess people view it differently.  I don't.  He's still a martyr.  Jailed on a charge for which was innocent.  Betrayed by the governor, who basically committed a state execution.  People hated him not for plural marriage rumors but because he claimed to be a mouthpiece for God and the number of people who believed him were considered a threat to the "old" settlers. 

Edited May 3, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[why me]

I think this may be difficult to disprove to your friend's satisfaction. The fact is that Joseph Smith wielded enormous power in Nauvoo. At his death, he was simultaneously the Church president, mayor, chief justice, and commander-in-chief of the Nauvoo Legion. As Richard Bushman and Dean Jessee forthrightly acknowledge in their Joseph Smith Papers essay, "Joseph Smith and His Papers: An Introduction": "[Joseph Smith's] acquisition of the major offices in the city, the courts, and the militia, as well as in the church, opened him to charges of megalomania." He was also running for president of the United States and had established a secret shadow government (the Council of Fifty). Some of his followers were referring to him as "president pro tem of the world" [source]. So I can see how some people might view Joseph's behavior as grandiose.

However, for all his power he died in prison with his brother, in a rather brutal way. If he had so much power, he could have defended himself and took many lives with him. Such would be the actions of megalomania. But he chose a different way. Why?

[cinepro]

My concern is the painting of Joseph as a megolamaniac seeking to rule the world.  Granted, a superficial glance at his ordinations as priest and king of the world can appear that way,  but I don't think this was the case.

 

 

I hate it when someone gets anointed as a "Priest and King" over a theocratic government that is expected to rule the world after near-future calamities cleanse the world of earthly governments, and then people blow it all out of proportion.

[why me]

I hear all the time that Joseph wasn't perfect, and this seems to be a great example of his fallibility. Destroying the Expositor was clearly wrong, but somewhat understandable given the history the Saints had gone through and certainty didn't merit the response taken by the violent mob.

I actually think that it needed to be destroyed. It was a threat to public safety and it was meant to be so. We also need to remember that mormon presses were also destroyed in Missiouri and nothing happened to the perpetrators of these acts. The saints came to nauvoo for a peaceful life after suffering some horrific persecution. It would only make sense that they would want to close down a tabloid meant to stir the pot.