Loading summary
Transcript43 lines
- [00:00]
A
When you want to look smart in Sunday school, if you want your friends to think you're cool, when you want to seem wise and not a fool, it's Christie's Corner. Hi, welcome to a special episode of the Standard of Truth podcast. Today, we thought we would talk a little bit about the martyrdom of Joseph Smith as we are approaching the 177th anniversary of his murder. There are a lot of things we could cover with this, but we will cover at least some of them as we go through and hopefully give all of our listeners a better understanding of some of the events that led to that awful tragedy. And of course, one of the most important aspects of church history, I think probably if you had to find a place to start, I mean, you could start pretty far back if you're trying to find a start to the persecution of Joseph Smith. I mean, he's, as he explains from the moment he tells anyone about the first vision, he's already has, has a problem with, with other people. But shortly after the Latter Day Saints are driven out of Missouri, you have them living as refugees in Illinois. The good people of Quincy take them in and they make the determination to purchase land further up the river in Commerce, Illinois, and outside of it, which is later to be renamed Nauvoo. Now, they are able to organize their city in such a way that they get an immense amount of power, and that's actually a little bit by design. Illinois at the time is controlled by the Democratic Party. Now, there are two parties in America at the time, two major parties. The Democratic Party, which will sound very similar to the party that exists today, and also the Whig Party, probably the worst name party in American history, right? The Hair Club for Men party, the Whig Party. It takes its name really from their opposition to President Andrew Jackson. They said he was acting like a king. And the Whig Party in England was the party that was in opposition to the king. So there's that. That's probably the least important aspect of any of this information. The Democratic Party controlled Illinois, and as they had a slight advantage in numbers. Well, you have all these Latter Day Saints who just now crossed the border into your state, and they are reliable Democratic voters. The Latter Day Saints had voted together in blocks since they were in Missouri, since they were in Ohio. And obviously there are a very few exceptions. But nearly every Latter Day Saint is a Democrat, and which might be surprising maybe to some of our listeners today, nearly everyone is a Democrat. And so they. They are seen by some of these politicians in, in Illinois as, as future votes. Now I know it's going to seem, it's going to be very difficult to understand. I need you to go back in time with me here to a time in which politicians might make a decision solely on the basis of winning an election. So imagine, I know it's not like today, today, you know, it's all purity. But imagine back in the day when, when, when we weren't so civilized and politicians would do whatever they, whatever they thought it would take to win. Well, they're able to secure a very, you know, a very broad charter with a lot of powers for their town. And none of the powers they have are completely unheard of, but they are certainly broad power. So for instance, Nauvoo is able to have its own court system. Now most towns don't get to have their own court system or at least not with the same kind of powers that they have. Although other towns in Chicago like Alton and, and Chicago did have that. They're able to establish a university. Again, that was something that, that usually took a special, a second type of charter for. And one of the main things is they were also able to have a city militia rather than just a county militia, they would have a city militia and that's the Nauvoo Legion. So it's a very broad charter, has lots of powers and it I think is something that helps them feel secure. Right. Rather than having to wait for the Hancock county militia to help them if there's some kind of mob violence. It's really key to understand that for the Latter Day Saints at this point in time, they have been through this horrific traumatic event in Missouri where it wasn't just the mobocratic violence that took place with Joseph in Hiram where he was drug outside and, and attacked. This is instead in some way state sponsored violence, right, that it's, it's other counties with their militias attacking Latter Day Saints, it's eventually the governor with the, with the extermination order allowing for the attack of the Saints, it's the, it's the militia of Missouri that's come you that is performing all the depredations and the murders in Hans Mill and in Far west and other places. And so if you're a Latter Day Saint who's just experienced that, you're just getting away from it. Security matters a lot to you.
- [05:30]
B
So was this something that the Mormons said, hey, if you want us to move here, this is the thing that we require, or is it something that this, that the state or the Democratic Party specifically was trying to do to Entice them in.
- [05:43]
A
I, I think that they, there's a lot of both going on. Certainly the Latter Day Saints want to feel secure. They, they certainly don't have to settle permanently in, in western Illinois. There's a lot going on. The whole country is in an economic downturn and has been since the panic of 1837. And so states need money. And, and one of the things that stopped happening when the economic downturn happened is people stop moving west. Well, if you're a state that borders the west at the time, which is Illinois, well, you no longer are getting this influx of population that's bringing more capital, that's bringing money, and, and you're, you're not growing in that population. Those parts of your state that would be growing and would be bringing in more capital. It's just not happening. So part of, it's just this purely financial thing. You've got thousands of these people that are going to move to the westernmost part of your state, the least developed, the least occupied, and begin producing for the state, becoming a tax base for the state. So even if they weren't solid Democratic voters, there would be an incentive to have them come in. I mean, this is something that, that, you know, states that run off from tourist dollars, you know, are trying to get people to come in not because they, you know, they love seeing a lot of people wearing, you know, flip flops and, and, and, and, and sunglasses in, in every store they go into. It's because they, they that outside money bolsters the economy. Well, the Latter Day Saints are this huge economic force too, that are going to be coming in, but it, it certainly helps a lot. And the charter is made stronger by, by the, it's made stronger by the, the understanding of the Democratic controlled legislature that it would be a solidly Democratic city that would help bolster their, their power there in the state. In, in the 1840 election, Illinois went Democrat for the, for the Democratic presidential candidate, but only by about 5,000 votes. So it kind of gives you an idea of how tight things were. This is the same Illinois that, you know, Abraham Lincoln is going to become a representative, a Whig representative in Congress, you know, shortly after this time period. Right. But he's only going to serve one term. And when he runs it for senator and the Lincoln Douglas debates and all that, when he runs against Stephen Douglas, he loses. He doesn't win. He loses. Lincoln is, is, you know, not exactly a big time winner when it comes to political things. He loses most of the time. So it's a way, I think for the Democrats to bolster their power, that was kind of tenuous, but now it's not tenuous anymore. So the Latter Day Saints are going to move there. Well, one of the things that that charter is granted is it, it grants them. Is it grants them this relatively generic power that is found in other city charters to remove nuisances to the town. Okay, so, so that's going to factor in a lot as we get going forward, really. You have a. You have a combination of factors that are going to lead up to the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. One of them is, is an external factor. An external factor. So the Latter Day Saints move to Nauvoo. You know, we'll, we'll cut.
- [09:21]
B
We'll.
- [09:21]
A
We'll cover some of this history in other podcasts. And they are the fairly reliable Democratic voters for a while, and then they're, they're really. Joseph really becomes frustrated with the Democratic Party nationally. I mean, he went to go visit Martin van Buren in 1840. And, you know, as every Latter Day Saint has heard quoted, the. The President of the United States essentially says, yeah, you guys have been wronged. And, you know, good luck with that. I mean, you know, by the one account, you know that if, if I help you, I'll lose the state of Missouri. I don't know exactly what Martin Van Buren said. There are various ways that people have interpreted that. I do know what Martin Van Buren did, and that is nothing. He didn't do anything to help the Saints.
- [10:13]
B
So what about the argument that Martin Van Buren didn't believe it was the federal government's place to enter into state matters?
- [10:22]
A
I think that he would certainly have a lot of supporters on that argument that. Well, I mean, you know, the, the, the federal government can't intervene because what are the Saints asking for? Joseph is asking for the fact that they have been robbed of thousands of acres of property. When the Saints are driven out of Missouri, the state of Missouri doesn't send them a check for all the land they confiscated. They don't offer to reimburse them for the people that were murdered. They don't, you know, send all the, the widows of Hans Mill, you know, some severance packages. They simply do nothing. They're driven out of the state in the middle of winter and, and with nothing and everything stolen. Their, Their, their property, livestock, their lands, their homes are all taken from them. And the federal government is looked at as this last resort. Of course, they petitioned the Missourians, you know, they petitioned the Missouri courts, but the Missouri courts unfortunately are also filled by Missourians. So the problem is you're asking the very people who now own your lands, can I have them back? So you think about and we'll cover the Mormon War in Missouri in a future cast. But the reality is that there was this utter lawlessness that took place and no one was held accountable. There are assaults, there are violent encounters, there are house burnings, there are crop burnings, there are outright murders and nobody is charged for that. Nobody serves any time. It is, it is both a human and a property tragedy for the Saints. They lose everything they had and so they, that, that's going to stick with them, obviously as we're talking about it. But when, when the question comes up, could, could Martin Van Buren have intervened? I mean, look, hindsight's always 2020 and there's certainly something to the fact the federal government is certainly not as strong then as it, as it, as it is now in intervening in state matters. At the same time, we're also pretty selective about that. Andrew Jackson had wildly increased the federal government's power and he had been more than willing to intervene in state matters when he thought that the rights, constitutional rights for the federal government were being violated. For instance, when South Carolina attempted to nullify federal law in South Carolina, Andrew Jackson passed a bill to send an army to South Carolina and only then did South Carolina back down. Andrew Jackson passed the Indian Removal act which led to the brutal removal of most of the Native American tribes that were living east of the Mississippi. And, and you know, by, by force. I mean, this is where the, the Trail of Tears comes. And, and in fact, in that case, the Cherokee actually win a Supreme Court case. You know, for all of the, the, the times you kind of hang your head in shame if you're an history. In this instance, the Supreme Court actually sided with the Native Americans and the response from Andrew Jackson was to simply have them removed anyway. So the, the reality was if Martin Van Buren had wanted to, he could have sent a federal army to Missouri and said contracts are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. The state cannot just willy nilly take property from American citizens. American citizens are guaranteed that if he wanted to, he could have. It would have been the most unpopular thing that ever happened. So could, could he have done it? Sure. I mean he had the ability to do it the same way that that Jackson had the ability to send troops to South Carolina. But there was political will to go to South Carolina. There's no political will to go help the most, you know, hated religious group in America at the time.
- [15:02]
B
And doesn't Martin Van Buren even execute on Andrew Jackson's. Oh yeah, so he shows in selective times when he uses the head of the Federal.
- [15:16]
A
Yeah, he's more than willing for the Trail of Tears. And the Cherokee removal primarily takes place under Van Buren.
- [15:23]
B
So Van Buren executes it.
- [15:25]
A
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So. So again, it's, it's a kind of a, it. Is it a very good argument for the time? Sure. Is it the kind of argument where you say, well, there's no possible way anyone could have done something? Well, that's what we say all the time until someone does something. I mean the, during the, the American Civil War there were lots of people arguing, well it's completely unconstitutional for the President of the United States to free every slave. Then Abraham Lincoln freed every slave. So I mean, I guess it becomes, it becomes, well, every slave in every seceded territory with the Emancipation Proclamation. But you know, it's up for debate. I mean, no doubt there are scholars listening to this going, well, I totally disagree. And I mean it would have been effectually politically impossible. You could see that. But the idea that the federal government literally couldn't intervene, I think is nonsense. I mean, George Washington intervened in Pennsylvania when farmers in western Pennsylvania started taking over courthouses and refusing to pay their taxes. The federal government, I mean you certainly could have intervened, you just didn't. And that, and that's, you know, I, I'm not saying that that there would have, you know, was a lot of appetite for it. There certainly wasn't. At any rate, Martin Van Buren has really soured Joseph on the national Democratic Party. So locally the Illinois Democrats are still being pretty friendly. The Whigs, as you might imagine, are not exactly super happy with a whole bunch of Democratic voters moving to the state.
- [17:06]
B
So you have, you have the Democrats win the presidential election in Illinois by 5,000 votes.
- [17:13]
A
They win the governorship, they win the legislature. The senators are both Democrats.
- [17:17]
B
But you have about 500,000 or 450,000 or so people living in Illinois at the time.
- [17:22]
A
Yep.
- [17:23]
B
And you have now about 20,000.
- [17:25]
A
Well at least at this early period, it's really only about 10. But the idea that more and more and more are going to be coming. And you know, the other thing is newspapers wildly exaggerate the number of Mormons. It's newspapers were then about how many Mormons there were. The way that a Mormon today is talking about how many Mormons there are, like no, I'm pretty sure we've got like 50 million. And we just not counting them. Well, I mean, there were some papers claiming there were as many as a hundred thousand Mormons in the country. I mean, so historians don't think those numbers are accurate, but it doesn't matter whether or not we think they're accurate. They're being reported widely by, by newspapers. And so at the very least, you're bringing in 10,000 people. Now, of course, they're not all voters because women can't vote. And, you know, but the idea is there's going to be this influx. And of course there is. I mean, eventually Nauvoo will become this, this urban area of 20,000 people, depending on how you count it. So it's in their best interest. But as you might imagine, the, the Whig opposition to that is, is going to be also a problem because, you know, the Whigs were already the party that was generally opposed to immigration. They were already the party, and these are all generalities. I know you can find some exceptions. They were also the party that was generally opposed to eccentric Christianity, if you, if you wanted to, to call it that way. I mean, so, for instance, the Democratic Party is far more pro Catholic, far more pro Jewish, you know, far more. It's just, it's less motivated by religious evangelicals. Yes, there are thousands of religious evangelicals in the Democratic Party, but the Whig Party is much more, it has much more of that as its basis. And so you can see that as an almost natural thing that. Well, while the Whig Party has a lot of fiery, you know, preachers in it, Mormons are outside of fiery, acceptable Christianity. So, I mean, there, there's a lot of factors and, and, and frankly, I can't do it justice talking about it here, but that, that'll be something we could cover at some point in the future as well. I mean, now that I have you hooked, you know, talking about 19th century federalism and political parties, I'm sure everyone's really excited for the remainder of the podcast, but it is, there are a lot of political factors, and the upcoming 1844 election is one of them. So Joseph is not just simply, you know, he didn't just petition Congress and petition Martin Van Buren and decide, well, that's it. He is really hoping that someone who's among the candidates now is going to be able to help them. He writes letters to all of the people that they anticipate to be presidential candidates the upcoming election. Now, they didn't have the same kind of primary system we have today. They basically sent delegates from each state to a convention. Everyone got drunk. They Got in fistfights and then eventually someone, you know, came out of it as the nominee. So. So you didn't have the same kind of thing where it was like, oh, I filed, you know, my papers to run as a candidate. I mean, you actually had a lot of guesswork of who was going to be the candidate. But there were some ideas that people might say, well, I think I will stand, you know, at the convention and what whatnot. So he writes to John C. Calhoun, who's former Vice President of the United States, firebrand Democrat, super pro slavery, and asking him what he would do, would he do anything to help the Mormons if he were elected. He writes to Richard Mentor Johnson, who also a former Vice President of the United States, also many people believe is going to run in the next election. He writes to Lewis Cass, Secretary of War, former Governor of Michigan. I mean, he's a very prominent place, Northern Democrat. He even writes to Martin Van Buren, though his letter to Martin Van Buren is not a. There are times when Joseph expresses great frustration and anger. And that's in one of. In that letter to Marvin Buren. You can read that on the Joseph Smith Papers if you want. He essentially says, I know you're not going to do anything for us because you already said you're not. But here's the letter so that, you know, just in case something changes. But he knew they didn't. And on the Whig side of the ledger. So the Whig Party is the party the Latter Day Saints are not very affiliated with. He writes to the only person anyone thinks is going to stand for the election, and that's Henry Clay. Henry Clay, you might remember from your, you know, your history classes, is the Great Compromiser. He's the person who authored the Compromise of 1820 or the Missouri Compromise. And he actually is going to at least be part of what will eventually turn into the Compromise of 1850 later. He is a slaveholding Whig Southerner from Kentucky, but his whole career has been about trying to follow the laws. I mean, at least much of what he has said in opposition to Jackson is that Jackson is just doing whatever he wants. And so there's, I think, some idea that he's this statesman, he is this lawyer, he's someone who's defended the Constitution. Surely Henry Clay will see that what's happened to the Latter Day Saints is absolutely unacceptable. Right? And Joseph is feeling so much this way. Now. Part of the problem is by late 1843, you can tell there's so many different Democratic candidates. There's a lot of people thinking that Martin Van Buren might have the best chance of getting elected. At the time, the president was John Tyler. John Tyler is essentially the most hated president in American history. Now, I know you're all thinking, actually, I can think of at least one more. I'm telling you, John Tyler is the most hated. And the reason why is William Henry Harrison is the first Whig president. The Whigs have been trying forever to win an election. They get close, they get close, they get close, they never win. They. So they take a page out of the Andrew Jackson playbook and throw a war hero up there and he wins. He does what all good Whig presidents do, and that is almost immediately dies once he takes office. But in order to win, he, he put John Tyler on his ticket. John Tyler was a prominent Virginia Democrat who had become disaffected with the Democrats. And so he had joined the Whigs. And so Democrats hated John Tyler. They saw him as having edged this election to William Henry Harrison. Well, after Harrison dies, John Tyler is not actually a Whig. He's been a Democrat his whole life. So the Whigs are in power and every bill they pass, he veto. So imagine the frustration of they finally got a president, but they actually got the vice president, who's actually not a Whig, who's actually opposed to it anyway. So his own party hates him. The party he left also hates him. I mean, there's so little appetite that he's just, he's just not going to run. So it's kind of an open. It's an open presidential election. So a lot of people could win, which is why many people think, oh, Henry Clay is going to be able to swoop in and take this. Joseph actually gives an interview in which he talks about the fact that he is going to vote for. Henry Clay publicly is saying this in 1843. And I think everyone knows that when, when Joseph starts saying he's going to vote for someone that's gonna, that's gonna sway a few votes on the ground, right? And so the interesting aspect of that is that in general, the Whig newspapers in Illinois were very anti Mormon because the Mormons were seen as this voting bloc that was, you know, hampering their efforts. And almost overnight, as Joseph comes out in favor of the Whig candidate, you know, those same newspapers, like, you know, Joseph is a very wise leader as he tries to. Again, hard to believe that people would like or hate someone on the basis of their political opinions alone. But you'll have to go with me to this place, this imaginary place in the past where people would love or hate someone solely on the basis if they agreed with them politically. You just have to, you have to imagine, right? So Joseph's on record that he's going to support Henry Clay. He then starts to receive the letters back from the candidates that he wrote to, asking them. And Henry Clay's letter is this crushing disappointment that he's not going to help the Latter Day Saints. Oh, I feel so terrible of all the things that have happened to you. But if I were to ever go into the presidential chair, I couldn't go in having made public pledges to anyone, which is like the biggest load of garbage ever. I mean, all of these guys are making promises to everyone just to even get through the nomination process. But look, Latter Day Saints are not popular. They are a hated religious minority group. It's, it's not the way to win elections to ally yourself with a hated religious minority group. The, the reality is it's, it's not politically a good move.
- [27:24]
B
So how do they become such a hated minority within the United States?
- [27:31]
A
Well, there's, I mean, there's, there's a lot of aspects to it. It could be, you know, tied up in a lot of things, but I mean, obviously they're outside of the mainstream of Protestant Christianity, and this is at the tail end of the second Great Awakening in America. So Americans are more religious and they're more Christian now than they've ever been by 1840. And here you have these people claiming that there's scripture outside of the Bible. Right. I mean, the fundamental of this Protestant Reformation is that the Bible is the only source of divine knowledge, the only source of the word of God. So there's, that certainly there's religious reasons. But then also the press is just, it's incredibly negative everywhere. I mean, it's really easy to just blame the Mormons for everything. Oh, you went to, you know, in New York, you couldn't get along with people, so you had to move to Ohio, and you couldn't get along with people in Ohio as you moved to Missouri, and you couldn't get along in Missouri. And of course, Missourians are certainly spinning, you know, the, the PR wheels, you know, to try to say, oh, yeah, these Mormons, they're just murderers. They're horrible people. No doubt there are individual Mormons that are, are causing problems, but they are seen as outside of the realm of accepted Christianity. And the fact that they are gathering together everywhere they go makes them at least a localized threat. No state wants a bunch of religious radicals to move to their state, and that's what Latter Day Saints are. So you're not winning any votes by saying, oh, I'll help. And it's not just about Missouri's votes. Well, if you're a Whig and you've got, you know, a bunch of the senators in the Congress that are Whigs are actually ordained ministers, I mean, yeah, they aren't exactly like, yeah, you should probably help those Mormons out. I mean, it's, it's a, there's a lot of reasons behind it. In any case, it, it's devastating to Joseph. Yeah, he gets nose back from John C. Calhoun, like, oh, you know, I, I don't, I don't know how John C. Calhoun talked, but very Southern, I'm sure. And, and you know, he claimed, oh, the federal government has limited power and would not be able to intervene in that way. And Joseph essentially writes him back after that, mocking him for the fact that, you know, he's willing to do all kinds of other things, but not that, you know, I mean, Joseph is certainly pretty emotional about this. He feels really strongly about it. I mean, if you haven't put them in their position, they are doing what you're supposed to do. They are petitioning every level of government. God has even told them to do that. And nobody is actually questioning whether or not they were wronged. All the people writing back are like, yeah, boy, that was pretty bad. Good luck with that. I mean, they're just not doing anything about it. And so think of how frustrating that is. I mean, I think that's something important to remember, you know, as application for ourselves today. I mean, the reality of that, people who have, who have been wronged, who have been hurt, who have been harmed, and that there doesn't seem to be any way to get legal recourse to that. And that, that is, is certainly how the Latter Day Saints feel. So why does this matter to our story? Well, once Joseph Smith hears back from Henry Clay that even if he becomes president, he's not going to help them. And on the other side of the ledger, all the people who did respond said, I'm not going to help you. And by the way, it might actually be Martin Van Buren who becomes the Democratic president, I'm pretty sure he's not going to help because he's already said, I'm not going to help, it really puts him in a bind, puts him in a bad place. And so Joseph makes a couple of decisions. And the first is that he's going to run for President himself, that he's going to, he will stand as A third party candidate for the presidency. Now he doesn't think he's going to win, okay? Like all third party candidates in American history. The point isn't to win. The point is to bring attention to, you know, I apologize to the people listening from the Constitutional Law Party or the Green Party. I, I know that, I know your candidate every year says that, you know, we're going to win. And the reality is it's never happened in American history and, and it's never even been close. The closest it ever got was with Theodore Roosevelt, who was the most, one of the most popular presidents in American history, who even he running as a third party didn't win. Right. So I mean it. But you don't run, you know. You know, you don't run because you think you're going to win. I mean, of course you'd love it if you did. You run to force the major parties to pay attention to those issues that matter. If you don't want me to siphon votes off, you know, if, if you're, if, if you're running and, and saying, you know, we should do more for green energy, right, you know, that you make a Green Party pitch, well, then that forces the parties, if they're worried about your popularity, to pay more attention to that issue, to talk about it, to come up with a plan for it, or you might siphon some of their votes off. And so Joseph makes that declaration. Well, for the Democrats in Illinois, Joseph's dalliance with the Whig Party, his willingness to even support Clay, you know, the hated Clay for the Democrats, that makes them realize the, the Latter Day Saints are no longer this easily trustworthy block of voters. Right? But it doesn't actually hurt them that bad. They are the majority in Illinois. So if the Democrats, if the, if the Latter Day Saints, you know, vote for Joseph Smith, then the Democrats win because they're already the majority. It, it really, what it really does is it devastates the Whigs. The Whigs are the ones who, they, for a brief time in late 1843, really thought they had a chance of winning Illinois. Because if all of these Latter Day Saints, and by this time thousands more have come in, they are swelling the ranks there. At this point, the, the Latter Day Saints might tip the balance so they, they start to have some hope. And then Joseph pulls the rug out from under them. Because for the Whigs, their only chance of winning is if the Latter Day Saints vote Whig. If they vote third party, well, then they still lose, right? They have a lot more to lose. And you see this huge increase in antagonism, especially from Whig newspapers that said things like, ah, we see how you can't actually trust the Mormons. You can't trust them. This is who they are, right? Using the political happenstance as a demonstration of their immoral character, essentially. So that's going on externally, the Latter Day Saints have lost some of their political allies and they have enraged other outside political forces. Internally, you have the culmination of some apostasies that really feed into this growing angry rhetoric. Now look, locally, if you aren't a Latter Day Saint living in Hancock county, the odds are you aren't happy that the Latter Day Saints live in Hancock county because they have come to dominate economically and politically that county. They, you know, if you were, you know, you know, patting yourself on the chest as, you know, mayor of Carthage, that you, you have nearly a thousand residents in your town. Well, that's, that's wonderful. And now there's 20,000 Mormons living down the street. I mean, it, it, you, you've lost what political power. That's certainly the case with Warsaw. Warsaw is this growing, you know, sees itself as, you know, the, the new St. Louis on the Mississippi. Mississippi, you know, and where do you think the steamships are going to land when there's a small town with a small market and a giant city just up the river with huge market? I mean, it's not even a question. So the Latter Day Saints also are, that economic influence is really. And of course, because they're a hated religious group, you can, you can put all kinds of attacks on them. Like, oh, well, those Mormons only trade with Mormons. Those Mormons only give fair prices to other Mormons. I mean, it's the kind of attacks that are made against religious minorities and other minority groups all the time, that they're somehow, if they look after their own economic interests, they're somehow, you know, there's, it's nefarious, there's something wrong with them about that. But inside, internally, you have the culmination of some of Joseph's most radical teachings that he is teaching and they are causing people to have issues. Obviously the most prominent doctrine and the doctrine that everyone would be first to come up with is the idea of plural marriage. I mean, we're not going to cover all of plural marriage today. I mean, at some point in the future, like a, you know, a 37 part podcast or something like that. And then that would only be the first year of it. But I mean, there's so much going on there it is important to realize, though, you know, if you're listening to this, the violence that took place in Missouri, right, All of the murders that happened with the Mormons being driven out of Missouri, that'll happen before the church is practicing plural marriage. So I think it's. It oftentimes we think, well, yeah, I mean, it's really bad that people were killed and stuff, but I mean, I mean, it'd be pretty bad. People start practicing polygamy. I guess I understand why people were so mad. Has nothing to do with polygamy. Polygamy has nothing to do with the violence in Missouri.
- [37:57]
B
So this actually reminds me, we were.
- [37:59]
A
Oh, boy. Yeah, it was a good story.
- [38:01]
B
Yeah, it was.
- [38:03]
A
We were at a conference.
- [38:05]
B
We were at a conference. We were in Hawaii together and we were, we attended a history conference. Because when you go to Hawaii, you're like, okay, we're gonna go to Pearl harbor, we're probably gonna hit the North Shore. We're gonna go to a history conference.
- [38:20]
A
Yeah, yeah. The first thing we're gonna. It's right, let's go to a history conference.
- [38:24]
B
It was fascinating. So you were presenting on a particular thing and there were other academics that were in, in this, in this listening to your lecture, but tell us.
- [38:34]
A
All right.
- [38:34]
B
It was really interesting.
- [38:35]
A
Well, there was someone in the, in the back. So I was, I was giving a paper on the expulsion of Latter Day Saints from the United States and, and the, and the, the, the hatred directed towards them. And, and one of the scholars in the back, you know, during the question answer raised their hand. He's like, oh, you know why? I don't understand why. Why are Latter Day Saints so, why are they so hated? I mean, why, why is the federal government doing those? You know, and so I went through some of the things that we've talked about. Look, there's economic factors, there's religious factors, and I start going down the line with a bunch of lists and he's still kind of shaking his head, looking very skeptical at everything I'm saying, you know, and then I said, you know, and then, you know, after, at least once they get to, to Utah, you know, they, they begin openly practicing plural marriage. And that exacerbated and like as soon as I said the word oh. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, yeah, that's why, that's why they, that's why they stopped because of plural marriage. It was great.
- [39:30]
B
It was like 15 minutes of reason, reason, reason, reason.
- [39:33]
A
Because he kept asking follow up questions like, oh, you know, so I kept going and going, going, here's all the reasons. And then of course, I'm moving forward in time. But polygamy only becomes a really big factor in national anti Mormon sentiment after they're in Utah because that's when it's actually being publicly practiced and it's not just rumors and things like that. So while it wasn't a factor nationally, for the most part, it certainly is a big factor internally. Right. Joseph has started practicing and teaching plural marriage in Nauvoo to a very select people. And it's secret. It's only to certain people as early as 1841. And there have been a couple of things that have really, that have happened that have really heightened the tensions on that, among them being John C. Bennett. So John C. Bennett is actually one of the people who helps them secure that very powerful charter. And that political ability of his kind of really elevates him in the status in the eyes of Joseph Smith. And Bennett is eventually going to be made a member of the First Presidency. Now, First Presidency then is a little bit different than the First Presidency now. I mean, when you're thinking of the First Presidency now, you're thinking of, you know, these are people that have all been apostles for years and they're called from the Quorum of the twelve to be a member of the First Presidency. In Joseph's time, the First Presidency, while a powerful important part of the church, it certainly doesn't have the same kind of status. And you know, John C. Bennett, for instance, you know, isn't, you know, he isn't a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and then elevated to be a member of the First Presidency, he just goes right in as a member of the First Presidency. At any rate, Bennett begins secretly teaching his own type of marriage system that he calls spiritual wifery. And the idea behind it is essentially that two believers can have sexual relations with one another without any commitment at all outside of of their marriages. And this, he claims, is coming from, you know, he convinces these individuals when he tells them this. He claims it's coming from, from Joseph Smith. It, he's, when he's found out, he's immediately excommunicated. And. But then he will write a series of letters which will eventually be formed into a book called History of the Saints that is one of the major anti Mormon books attacking Joseph Smith in his lifetime. Much of it he actually copies from Mormonism unveiled that earlier anti Mormon book. But the part that he has to contribute is, you know, I was an insider, I saw, you know, claims that Joseph Smith threatened to murder him if he unveiled his scheme of practicing polygamy. It's really, I mean, we could do multiple podcasts on John C. Bennett, but you know, he makes so many contradictory statements throughout his, his life. I mean, he, he claims in his book that he only joined the Latter Day Saints. He never, ever, ever believed. And he only joined them so that he could show everyone that, you know, he pretended to believe so that he could expose them to the world. Of course that, you know, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense given the fact that after he is excommunicated from our church, he will eventually join and be part of the Strangite church. I don't know if he's trying to also expose them. I mean, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Second of all, he will claim for years that all of the charges of adultery against him were made up, that there was no truth to them at all. But I have it on pretty good authority that he actually did commit adultery because John C. Bennett will later in one of his paid speaking circuits, admit to the crowd that he had an affair with a, quote, fair princess of Nauvoo. And so the reality is John C. Bennett's all over the place, but he makes all kinds of over the top, outlandish claims that the whole, the whole existence of the Relief Society is to have a different tiered wife system for Joseph Smith. Things for which historians have, there's no, there's no evidence for at all. Right. His book's very popular, but it is seen as, essentially, it's seen as propaganda. And so even most Americans don't seem to think that Latter Day Saints are actually practicing plural marriage. Even though his book is a hot seller because, you know, it's, it's, it has spicy topics. Joseph continues to practice plural marriage, again, privately. I mean, because still teaching it, other people like William Clayton are going to.
- [44:51]
B
Be practicing, you say, privately. What are we talking in terms of the scope?
- [44:54]
A
I mean, it's several dozen people that have been taught about plural marriage and, and are practicing it in some form by, by 1844.
- [45:03]
B
So what's the reason for this, the.
- [45:05]
A
Reason for, for the, the, you know.
- [45:07]
B
The private nature of this?
- [45:08]
A
I mean, there's, I think, a lot of reasons. I think Joseph rightly discerns. I, I don't know. Right. So this is all speculation. Joseph doesn't say these are the reasons why we're not going to tell everybody. I think that first of all, plural marriage is illegal in Illinois. Okay, Now These marriages that they're performing are not, they're not technically speaking, legal marriages. Right? They're not, you know, William Clayton does not go get a second marriage certificate signed by the county clerk for his marriage to his, his second wife. It's a religious ceremony that's performed. And I think that's part of the reason why they think that they are not violating the laws of Illinois. Like, well, I mean, technically, you know, as far as you're concerned. At any rate, I think that it's something that, you know, Joseph knows is really difficult. Joseph himself has waited years to roll the, the doctrine out. And so I, I think the idea is to slowly teach the, the closest end of his inner circle and, you know, and then allow that teaching to be broadened out. And again, he's already decided because the second decision he made, aside from running for President in 1840, the second decision he's made is they're leaving the country that they're not going to be able to get peace and security inside the United States. You already have papers in Illinois calling for the elimination of Latter Day Saints, the extermination of Latter Day Saints. Well, this ain't their first rodeo. They've been down that road before. Once people begin publicly calling for physical violence against them as a people, it's time to move. Right. So that I, I think my guess is his intention is that at some point it will be taught more openly and that point will come when they're no longer under this threat of mobocratic violence. And, and again, because John C. Bennett's words in 1842 were used to try to whip up anti Mormon sentiment, I, I think the same thing's going to happen. Jose is also teaching his most radical doctrines in the Nauvoo period. Some of them are doctrines that, that, you know, no one listening to this thinks is radical. I mean, for instance, baptism for the dead. I mean, people listening might think it's radical, but in like a 1990s sort of way, like, oh, it's totally radical. The idea that people can be baptized. You know, even they can, they can be saved even if they never were members of the church, they can join the church after this life. That's a really radical idea to 19th century Christians who adamantly believe that if you don't accept Jesus in this life, you go to hell and it doesn't actually matter why you don't accept Jesus. So people, people have a really hard time with baptisms for that. I mean, your, your average Latter Day Saint today loves the idea of baptisms for the dead. It's, it might be one of the reasons why you believe because God is such a God of equality that he allowed there to be an equality of opportunity to accept the truth. But people are going to leave the church over the idea of baptism for the dead. Because if you're saying that, that you don't have to accept Jesus in this life to be saved, what are we talking about? I mean, it's the fundamental aspect of Christianity. Alongside Joseph's teaching of baptism for the dead, he's teaching the idea of progression, that mankind is able to progress and not just progress and become better or even become perfect, but that he's begun teaching that mankind is in some way like God. And this is really going to come to a fruition with the King Follett sermon that a lot of people have heard, probably fewer people have read, but a lot of people have heard about that, where Joseph is explaining in no uncertain terms something that is utterly blasphemous to Christians and that is that God wasn't always God. It is an idea that, frankly, I mean, when your friend, you know, your Christian friend tells you that you're not really a Christian because you're a Latter Day Saint, but probably still using the word Mormon, that's one of the things that's on their mind when they tell you that you worship a different Jesus. I mean, part of it is for a Christian God. The definition of God is that God has always been. That's the definition. And Joseph is explaining how it is that God came to be God and that God was once a man.
- [50:20]
B
And.
- [50:20]
A
That he became God. That is seen as the blasphemy of all blasphemies. And it's very difficult for people to handle and to accept. Joseph is teaching that that marriage exists in the next life, whether it's plural marriage or not. The idea that marriage exists in the next life is a radical doctrine not accepted by other Christian religions. And so there's a lot that Joseph is revealing. And of course on top of this sacred temple covenants that Joseph has already started to reveal in 1842 in the red brick store for people on the outside looking in, this just appears to be this great and terrible blasphemy. And why this is all part of our discussion of the martyrdom is that these blasphemies are what are going to be the clarion call of some of the apostates that will found. The Nauvoo Expositor William Law is going to be the most prominent among them. William Law, like John C. Bennett had been, is a member of the First Presidency. William Law has been a, you know, a tireless defender of Joseph, but he is going to, by January of 44, become somewhat disaffected. And it appears to have to do with the radical teachings that Joseph is teaching. We always focus on plural marriage. Certainly William Law is speaking out against that, but in the paper he's actually listing multiple things. In the Nauvoo Expositor, he lists off multiple reasons why Joseph is essentially a fallen prophet. They still believe, at least the paper claims they still believe. But the teaching of plural marriage, the idea that there was a time that God wasn't God or that there are more gods than just God, because if God wasn't always God, then that means he became God somehow. And that means that there has to be more. I mean, that idea is seen as totally blasphemous. The fact that Joseph is running for political office is seen as also not appropriate in the eyes of God. So the Nauvoo Expositor is this, this newspaper that's founded in Nauvoo, as the name implies, to expose, you know, these truths from this now apostate William Law and his compatriots. And these are the, the claims they make. So the Latter Day Saints are really faced with kind of a, an unwinnable scenario here if they don't do anything. Well, the Nauvoo exposure is going to just keep publishing things because it's coming from Nauvoo, because it's, you know, being written by these former insiders to the church. They get to say whatever they want to say. And it all comes across even more negative to the local anti Mormon populace that is already rising in their antagonism towards the church.
- [53:32]
B
Church.
- [53:34]
A
The Latter Day Saints experienced previously what happens when newspapers begin to, to kind of make public sentiment become more and more and more negative. And so this all goes back to our discussion of the charter, the, the, the part of what happens in the paper. I mean, certainly some people said, well, most of what's in the novel expositors is true. So I mean, it's not, it's not libelous at all. I mean, they were practicing plural marriage. They are teaching that, you know, there are more gods than one and stuff like that. But there is one part where the novel Expositor deliberately jumps the shark, as you might say, right, that it deliberately goes beyond what is true. And when it's describing the plural marriage that's being practiced, it deliberately uses the terminology spiritual wifery. Why, as A denigration. Because everyone reading that paper knows what's spiritual wifery. Spiritual wifery is that garbage, fake system created by John C. Bennett in his effort to fornicate with people. And so by saying that plural marriage is. That the plural marriage being practiced in Nauvoo is spiritual wifery, what are you actually saying? You're saying everybody's fornicating with everybody else and that there is no actual boundaries or laws on this sexuality.
- [55:00]
B
So what is it that causes William Law to leave the church? Polygamy plays a major role in him.
- [55:08]
A
Deciding to leave the church. This is one of those historical questions that you don't really have a good answer for. And if you asked a bunch of different people, that I'll give you a different answer. The first indication that we have of any rocky relations between Joseph and William Law actually come as part of a political campaign. William Law is someone who is a supporter of the Whigs in Illinois. So he's kind of going a different. A different way there. And Joseph has a lawyer who helps him out. His name's Cyrus Walker, and he's running to be the Whig candidate for Congress for that the area covered by where Nauvoo is. And Joseph, you know, because this guy was helpful to him in some of his legal troubles, pledges to vote for Cyrus Walker. Well, Hyrum Smith not so persuaded. And in a public meeting, Hyrum Smith says, we need to vote for. For the other. The. The Democratic candidate. His name is Hogue. And, you know, William wa. Kind of protests and. And Hyrum Smith says, I've had a revelation that we need to vote for Hogue. I mean, imagine what would happen if, you know, if President. President Uchendorf now, you know, if he were to say, you know, I had a revelation that we need to vote for X candidate for. For, you know, for this office. I mean, certainly there would be some outrage on the people who are for the other candidate. But also you'd have this huge sway of people saying, all right, well, I wasn't even going to vote before. But I mean, if he's saying it, then I guess I am. You know, I mean, kind of highlights part of the problems and. And that appears to be an initial real conflict for them. I mean, one of the things that Law cites in his paper is that the fact that there's a uniting of political and religious power in Nauvoo. Well, where can you see that? Very on display by the fact that, yeah, Joseph votes for Cyrus Walker, nobody else does, because Hiram Smith has Said that he's had a revelation of overhauging. So I think that's an early part. There are multiple claims that circulate once William Law publishes his paper on the Latter Day Saint side. They say things like that William Law apostatized not over plural marriage so much, but over the fact that Joseph refused to seal his wife Jane Law to William while they were doing these early sealings because William Law had committed adultery at some point in his life. She had a couple of witnesses who say, I heard William Law say that he'd committed adultery. Hyrum Smith tells the Nauvoo City Council this when they're discussing the difficulties. On the, the other side of the ledger, you have people who are claiming that in fact what happened is that Joseph tried to marry Jane Law, tried to seal Jane Law to himself, and that William Law got upset and that's the reason why he, he apostatized. I will say that later in life, William Law will give send a letter in response to someone who's trying to interview him. A very antagonistic anti Mormon by the name of Wilhelm Wei Mettel, which is a pretty fun name. And it's published in the Salt Lake Tribune, which at the time was a dedicated anti Mormon paper. It was established to be in opposition to the church at the time. And I'm not making any commentary about it today. That's not what I'm saying. But back in the day, in the territorial days, it was, it was seen as this opposition newspaper and would, you know, they'd publish articles like why Joseph Smith's not a prophet all the time. I mean, it was, it was deliberately so. But in it, you know, he's asked whether or not, you know, that was the case. And, and essentially William Law says, well, I never heard anything about, about that. So he seems to discount that idea that it was, you know, some kind of an attempt to marry Jane Law. You have another account from someone at the time who's saying that, you know, that actually, you know, Jane asks Joseph to seal her to, to Joseph because if she can't be sealed to William, then to be sealed to Joseph. And Joseph says, well, you're gonna have to talk to your husband, basically you know, kind of thing. So there's a lot going on there and it's something that, you know, there's too many sources and we don't have enough time to go into all of it. But regardless, By January of 1844, William WA is trending out. By April, he is very much on the outs. And by June he's publishing the Nauvoo Expositor. And so they go back and they view their charter. What are our options in this scenario? What options do we have if we continue to let the paper publish its libelous, you know, lies about people? Well, then it's going to inflame mob violence. Do we have the authority to do something about it? And they, they look, they go through some of, you know, Blackstone's legal commentaries and they, they decide that they have legal recourse to just destroy the press because it's a nuisance to the town. And, and so they go and they find other court cases where they can cite a libelous press as being a nuisance to the town that, that it is legally justified. If someone is a libelous press, then, then you can go destroy the press. You can remove it as a nuisance. Now, if there's any group of people who know that you can have your press destroyed and that no one is ever charged for it or that you don't get any recompenses, it's Latter Day Saints because, you know, the, the Times and see, I mean, sorry, the Evening Morning Star newspaper was pitched out a window and you know, the, the type destroyed in the street. The same press they were trying to book, print the Book of Commandments on. Similarly, the Latter Day Saints, though I don't know if they have commentary on this. Not many years earlier, there was in, in both Missouri and Illinois, a very highly public destruction of a press. And that was a press that had happened. It belonged to an abolitionist. Now, I know today when we think about the north and the south that, you know, it's common for people that, you know, to only identify. You know, hopefully we identify with abolitionists and we say, well, you know, slavery is wrong, but abolitionists are really hated in the 19th century. I mean, in the 1830s especially, they are seen as people trying to destroy the fabric of society. Even in the North. In the north, they, there are few people that really support the idea of the abolition of slavery. And there's all kinds of racist reasons for that. There's all kinds of societal and political and economic reasons. But the reality is abolitionists are not loved. Well, Lovejoy is someone who, he is printing this anti slavery sheet and he's doing it in St. Louis at first and they destroy several of his presses. So he gets another press and he, he moves to, to Alton, Illinois. So now he's in the same state that the Latter Day Saints will be and his press is destroyed and, and, and thrown into the river. And. And he gets a fourth press, in fact. So this. This guy's had his press destroyed three times already. The fourth time he has it in. In this warehouse and. And a mob assembles and they come and they begin shooting, and some of. Of Lovejoy's supporters kind of shoot back trying to defend the press. And Lovejoy tries to come outside and he's shot five times and killed. And then they destroy his press. But there's no one convicted of Elijah Lovejoy's murder, as far as I know. There's no one charged for the destruction of the press. Kind of gives you an idea. In frontier america in the 19th century, there was kind of an understanding that if you start printing something that's not okay, we're. We're going to destroy the. If the society that you're around is not okay with. They're going to straighten out. To a 21st century American, that's horrifying, right, the idea of suppressing free speech in that regard. But free speech ideals are not applied like that in. In the 19th century. And so, you know, his presses that were destroyed on the St. Louis side of the river, you know, no one's brought to justice for that. No, no remunerations. His presses that are destroyed on the. On the Alton side of the river, you know, no remunerations for that. Now, the people who were charged with his murder were all found not guilty. So, I mean, I guess there was great. There was some. There was some legal action taken. It was just to say that they're actually not guilty, which means they can't be tried again for it. So if they were looking even locally to what might happen when. When people destroy a press, well, here's an extra legal destruction of multiple presses. This is not the Alton. You know, city council got together and they voted and they said, well, our charter allowed. This is a mob that has destroyed multiple presses and committed a murder, and nothing happens. So I think that the Nauvoo City council thinks, well, you know what? We. We're going to cite, you know, this part of our charter that says we can remove a nuisance to this town. A libelous press has been found to be a nuisance to the town in multiple occasions in American history. Here are the legal documents on it. We are going to proceed as a legal action. And the city council orders the destruction of the press. Now, however legally justified they thought it was, and of course, scholars have argued, you know, that in the end, it's probably not terribly legally justified. They at least thought that they were being legally justified. None of that actually matters, because with the destruction of that press, the shouts of Mormon usurpation of power, you know, the. The fact that they had just taken over government, they'd just taken over power, that becomes this clarion call that is going to lead to Joseph Smith's arrest and eventually to his murder. So that's our background that we're going to talk about. And in part two, we're going to talk about the actual events that are leading up to the martyrdom and the martyrdom itself. Thank you for listening to the Standard of Truth podcast, hosted by historical historian Dr. Garrett Dirkmot. If you know anybody that could benefit from the material in this episode, please share it with them. And for more resources, visit standardoftruth. Com. Until next time.