• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

FairMormon

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Come, Follow Me Resources

  • Find Answers
  • Blog
  • Media & Apps
  • Conference
  • Bookstore
  • Archive
  • About
  • Get Involved
  • Search

RNicholson

These Are Our Sisters

March 26, 2014 by RNicholson

Just stop it

By Cal Robinson and Juliann Reynolds

The internet is buzzing in response to the March 17th news release written by Jessica Moody of Public Affairs to the leaders of Ordain Women (OW) on “behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”:
Women in the Church, by a very large majority, do not share your advocacy for priesthood ordination for women and consider that position to be extreme. Declaring such an objective to be non-negotiable, as you have done, actually detracts from the helpful discussions that Church leaders have held as they seek to listen to the thoughts, concerns, and hopes of women inside and outside of Church leadership. Ordination of women to the priesthood is a matter of doctrine that is contrary to the Lord’s revealed organization for His Church.
The point here is not to reiterate the Church’s position. It is made very clear in the statement above. Rather, the purpose is to address how best to help members have a more respectful dialogue. A recent Trib Talk provides an excellent discussion by three dynamic women with differing viewpoints. Jennifer Napier-Pearce questioned Kate Kelly (the spokesperson for Ordain Women [1]), Neylan McBaine (editor of the Mormon Women Project [2]), and Julie Smith (blogger on Times and Season [3]).

McBaine and Smith take issue with the need for priesthood ordination and the methods being used by Ordain Women to achieve it. However, all three women look forward to more inclusion and recognition of women, echoing a sentiment of President Linda K. Burton of the General Relief Society that the church would benefit as “men’s vision of the capacity of women becomes more complete.” [4] But most striking was that all three were in complete agreement that the insults and ridicule directed at OW and its members from some of those defending the Church is “horrific.” [5]

Rather than engaging in a respectful and compassionate discussion of what is obviously an extremely divisive topic, many participants have responded with derogatory and dismissive remarks.  Often we are unaware of how our comments are viewed by others. By always responding with kindness in our disagreement, we will be better able to create a safe space for all, without pushing those who feel marginalized to the more extreme positions.  President Uchtdorf explains, “[W]hen it comes to our own prejudices and grievances, we too often justify our anger as righteous and our judgment as reliable and exclusively appropriate. Though we cannot look into another’s heart, we assume that we know a bad motive or even a bad person when we see one. We make exceptions when it comes to our own bitterness because we feel that, in our case, we have all the information we need to hold someone else in contempt.” [6]
Of equal concern are those well-intentioned counter arguments to women’s ordination that not only diminish women in general, but the priesthood itself.  Any defense that involves a refusal of the priesthood as if it was just one more thing to add to an already full schedule is no defense. Likewise, declaring that its primary purpose is to force men to be responsible is not consistent with statements by church leaders that describe the role of the Priesthood with utmost reverence. For example, Elder John H. Groberg said in the April 2001 Priesthood Session, “I hope we appreciate the priceless privilege of holding the priesthood of God. Its value is unfathomable. ” [7] Comparing the authority and power of God to everyday tasks in an effort to convince women they shouldn’t want the priesthood certainly does not elevate or show respect for such a priceless privilege.

Actual comments found on blogs and message boards, such as those shown below, provide examples of what not to say when discussing the priesthood:

1.  Questioning or dismissing women’s worthiness or faithfulness.

“[H]ow tainted by the “philosophies of men” have some women become.”
“These are not faithful women in our church! If so, you would not be questioning The Lord.”

2.  Questioning women’s motives.

“If I trusted that these agitating sisters were approaching things out of sincere and pure motives, I’d be the first to  sympathize…I see no indication that they are seeking it, wanting it, or even expecting it. They really are living beneath their privileges.”
“Why would women want the priesthood other than mortal pride or self satisfaction?”

3.  Questioning women’s knowledge or understanding.

“What I believe is happening is a group of uninformed women are fighting for something that they don’t even understand completely…They do not even understand what they are asking for!”
“I think that women who are seeking for the Priesthood, do not fully understand the nature of men, and how the Priesthood helps them.”

4.  Discounting men and/or the priesthood.

“[W]hy do you want the priesthood?…I feel like I have enough responsibilities in the church already. And I have never felt oppressed in those responsibilities.”
“Honestly, what earthly need would we have for men if the women should be ordained? Why would a father need to bless his children with the priesthood? Why have men run the organization of the church?”

5. Misrepresenting and mischaracterizing.

“Giving women the priesthood outside of their connection to the priesthood through their husbands would be the same as removing men altogether from the plan of salvation. At least it would be equivalent to removing women’s role as child bearers and nurturers.”
“If women received the priesthood, relief society would need to be disbanded and all would be in the elder’s quorum.”

6. Inviting them to leave the church.

“If these women are so unhappy there are plenty of other churches out there that [might] be more in line with [their] views about ordaining women into the priesthood…why would a person want to worship in a church they don’t agree with? Other than to advance some modern feminist agenda.”
“May I suggest that it would be a simple thing to find a church who ordains women to the priesthood?”

 7. Calling out Satan to finish the job.

“I have seen many parallels to anti-Christs in the Book of Mormon. That does not mean that I am judging all of these individuals as anti-Christ; but, they indeed appear to be pawns in Lucifer’s hands.”

These are only a few examples of common sentiments and may leave some wondering what would be a better response. Church leadership has provided a number of examples of Christlike approaches, particularly that of Ruth M. Todd (Church Public Affairs) in her interaction with OW last October as they attempted to gain admission to the Priesthood session of General Conference. [8]

First, Sister Todd was clear in stating the Church’s position. She said, “This meeting is all about strengthening the men of our church, so this is no surprise to you, that we won’t be able to offer you a ticket or a place to see it…Millions of women in this church do not share the views of this small group that has come and organized this
protest today…And some of the members feel this is very divisive as well.”

Sister Todd then reached out with charity, saying, “Even so, these are our sisters, and we want them in our church. And we hope they find the peace and joy we all seek in the gospel of Jesus Christ.” She spoke directly with everyone she could, going down the line and taking them by the hand. She engaged them as individuals rather than as opponents or outsiders with the assurance, “I am so happy to know you…”

Why does the way we speak to each other matter? The gospel is supposed to be a refuge for all. It welcomes all, and so must we as church members. A quick look at the Mormon Women Project website or the member profiles on mormon.org shows the dazzling array of cultures, opinions and personalities that have found a haven in the church. It’s completely acceptable to voice disagreement with OW’s purpose; what is not acceptable is to deny these women, our sisters in the church, the same attempt at love and reconciliation that we would extend to others whose viewpoints are more in line with our own.
If Neylan McBaine, Julie Smith, and Kate Kelly can have a heartfelt discussion despite their fundamental disagreement over the ordination of women, so can we. For those of us who reject the belief that ordination is a necessary step in spiritual progression for women and for the church, and as we support our leaders, we should remember President Uchtdorf’s counsel against contributing to a soul-breaking rift in our Church family when he said, “If you are tempted to give up: Stay yet a little longer. There is room for you here.” [9]

We can share his message not only those who have left the faith, but also with members who may wonder if they are even still welcome.  We can stop the rejection, insults, and condemnation and make a place on the pew for all who want to follow Christ.

Note: “This topic of judging others could actually be taught in a two-word sermon. When it comes to hating, gossiping, ignoring, ridiculing, holding grudges, or wanting to cause harm, please apply the following:

Stop it!

It’s that simple. We simply have to stop judging others and replace judgmental thoughts and feelings with a heart full of love for God and His children. God is our Father. We are His children. We are all brothers and sisters. I don’t know exactly how to articulate this point of not judging others with sufficient eloquence, passion, and persuasion to make it stick. I can quote scripture, I can try to expound doctrine, and I will even quote a bumper sticker I recently saw. It was attached to the back of a car whose driver appeared to be a little rough around the edges, but the words on the sticker taught an insightful lesson. It read, ‘Don’t judge me because I sin differently than you.’”   “The Merciful Obtain Mercy”, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Second Counselor of the First Presidency, April 2012 General Conference, https://www.lds.org/…-mercy?lang=eng

Footnotes

1: http://ordainwomen.org/ Kate Kelly is also an international human rights attorney.  Kelly has stated that the goal of OrdainWomen is “[t]o improve the situation of women in the church and to achieve fundamental equality. . . we want to not only be consulted about decisions but we want to be part of the decision making  process. We want to bless the lives of others and we want to be transformed by what we know is the power of God.”  She adds, “We believe in the priesthood and we believe it is the power of God. Otherwise, none of this would be worth it.” See http://www.sltrib.co…church.html.csp

2: http://www.mormonwomen.com/ Neylan McBaine works for Bonneville Communications as a brand strategist, including on the “I am a Mormon” project. McBaine states her stance on women’s roles in the Church as “There are many things that we could be and should be doing in the church to increase the way we see, hear, and use women in our local administration and the general administration.  I think where we diverge is the root cause of the problem…I don’t believe that the doctrine of the priesthood is the root cause of that.” See http://www.sltrib.co…church.html.csp

3: http://www.timesands…JulieIntro.html Julie M. Smith is also the author of the book Search, Ponder, and Pray: A Guide to the Gospels.  Smith sees the core of the contention to be “[t]he methods OW uses [which] are alienating to a lot of people, I think they provoke a backlash and I think they are fundamentally foreign to Mormonism.” See http://www.sltrib.co…church.html.csp

4:   http://www.nytimes.c…tw-nytimes&_r=2

5: Julie M. Smith:  “I have to say I find it largely disheartening, while I don’t support OW, a lot of the response has been horrible.  I have heard comments about being burned at the stake and vitriol along those lines.”

Neylan McBaine:  “The response has been horrific. One of the things I hope that we are modeling here, and what I have tried to do throughout my entire time in this conversation, is model the Christlike respectful conversation that makes our points very clear but also is understanding and respectful of the other point of view.  So I would just add my plea to all of us to bridge the conversations that are happening online with what we know is right and with what we are enacting in our Sunday experiences.”

6: “The Merciful Obtain Mercy”, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Second Counselor of the First Presidency, April 2012 General Conference, https://www.lds.org/…-mercy?lang=eng

7: “Priesthood Power”, Elder John H. Groberg, April 2001 General Conference, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/sessions/2001/04?lang=eng

8:  Ruth Todd’s comments were reported in numerous articles and videos.  In our opinion, the fullest treatment with all the included quotes is available in the video at: http://fox13now.com/…for-that-right/

9:  “Come, Join with Us”, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, October 2013 General Conference, https://www.lds.org/…ith-us?lang=eng

 

 

Filed Under: Women

When the Saints Go Marching Out of Control

February 3, 2014 by RNicholson

On January 30, 2014 an article authored by Hannah Miet appeared in Newsweek titled “When the Saints Go Marching Out”. The article had been anticipated by some in the online ex-Mormon community as a way to more fully explore some of the issues faced when one leaves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Unfortunately, the author instead chose to lead off by focusing on ex-Mormon efforts to actively proselyte Church members. Some of these activities included stuffing hundreds of “pass-along” cards into lockers and books and vandalizing Books of Mormon in Marriott Hotels by writing ‘Lies! All Lies!’ inside the cover. Ms. Miet concluded that, “Some former adherents act like soldiers for an ex-Mormon liberation army, seeking out the doubters within the church, extracting them, and bringing them to more tolerant territory.”

Ms. Miet then chose to describe in painstaking detail what she called “Preaching the Liquor Gospel.” This involved a detailed description of how new ex-Mormons attend a class called “Liquor 101,” in which they learn how to order and consume alcoholic drinks. The drinks are consumed in “official” LDS sacrament cups obtained on E-Bay, illustrating a subtle mockery by ex-Mormons of things which Latter-day Saints consider sacred.

The resulting article seems to confirm and reinforce the existence of the stereotypical ex-Mormon who “leaves the Church, but cannot leave it alone” or the member who leaves the church because they “want to sin.” Indeed, there is little in this article to discourage such a perception.

Unfortunately, the author of the Newsweek article missed an opportunity which might have benefited both believers and non-believers. No, I am not referring to an opportunity to produce a “laundry list” of items which are claimed to cause one to lose one’s faith. That is what some ex-Mormons had hoped for in this article. Such lists have appeared in news publications before, and they no doubt will again. I am referring to the lost opportunity to treat an issue which affects both the persons leaving the faith, and their family members who remain in the Church. The Newsweek article briefly alluded to some of these concerns, but not in any significant way.

When someone leaves the faith, either individually or with their family, their friends and relatives are affected in a variety of ways. Some are able to quickly adjust to the new family dynamic. Others take some time to adjust and adapt, but eventually find a way to move forward. Unfortunately, some treat those who have left as if they were dead, and they cease contact with that person.

Believers go through a mourning process for their “spiritually dead” loved ones in much the same manner that one grieves the physical death of a relative. The difference is, of course, that in this case the relative is still with them, and is still fully capable of communicating their concerns and influencing others. In fact, they may be actively attempting to persuade other family members to follow them down the same path. In addition, someone who has left the Church may be mourning their own loss of belief, and attempting to readjust and fill a void that has suddenly appeared in their life.

The most unfortunate outcome, which sometimes occurs even though it is directly contrary to the counsel given by Church leaders, is that the person leaving is cut off from their extended family, either physically, emotionally or both. Ex-Mormons refer to this as “shunning.” One of the first reactions of a believer when a loved one rejects the Church is to attempt to protect the rest of their family from this new, unwanted influence. This may lead some to take an extreme approach: They attempt to isolate the non-believer from the family. Some new non-believers, on the other hand, sometimes wants to share their new-found “truth” with those they love in order to “get them out” of what they now mockingly refer to as “the cult”; in the process, they place unneeded stress and pain on family relationships by mocking the Church and Mormon beliefs during family gatherings.

One should not cease to love a relative because they change the way they believe. Likewise, one should not attempt to rip away the beliefs of family members simply because one’s own views have changed. The key is having mutual respect for one another’s ability to choose. It requires understanding on the part of the believer that their spouse is still their spouse, their child is still their child, and their friend is still their friend. It also requires the non-believer to respect the wishes of those who still believe, without classifying them as “blind followers” who are now perceived to be incapable of logic and reason. We all have our agency, both believers and non-believers alike, and we must respect each other’s ability to choose. It isn’t always easy to do, but it is what we must do. I once asked the father of a man who left the Church many years ago how he dealt with the situation. His response: “We decided that we just needed to keep loving him, regardless of what he believed.”

Unfortunately, the article “When the Saints Go Marching Out” propagates the harmful stereotypes that all who leave the Church want to immediately get drunk and actively recruit others out of the Church. The author didn’t make those details up: She got them from her interviews with a specific group of ex-Mormons. There were, no doubt, many additional things discussed in the interviews which didn’t make it into print. The interviewee cannot select which details from an extensive interview the reporter will choose to feature in an article. The author apparently selected those details which she perceived would have the most entertainment value for a non-Mormon audience. Perhaps in the future we can hope to see an article on the social aspects and interaction between believers and non-believers which would actually move both sides toward a greater mutual understanding.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

The Cowdery Conundrum: Oliver’s Aborted Attempt to Describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision in 1834 and 1835

December 8, 2013 by RNicholson

Editor’s note: This blog post is the introductory section of Roger Nicholson’s December 2013 article in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture (The Cowdery Conundrum: Oliver’s Aborted Attempt to Describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision in 1834 and 1835). The full article may be read on the Interpreter website.

Joseph Smith made his first known attempt to write a history of the Church in 1832. Some of the account was written in Joseph’s own hand and the rest by Frederick G. Williams. Joseph’s history describes his first vision, Moroni’s visit, the loss of the 116 pages of manuscript, and the arrival of Oliver Cowdery. Joseph never completed it beyond that point, and it was never published during his lifetime.

A few years later, in 1835, Joseph produced an account of his First Vision in his journal. He told about how he described the vision to a visitor, a non-Mormon stranger, who had stopped by his home. This is the second known account of the vision written in the first person. Neither the 1832 account nor the 1835 account appear to have received any public circulation. The formal account of the vision would not be written until 1838. This is the account contained in the Pearl of Great Price.

Between 1832 and 1835, Oliver Cowdery, as editor of the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate (hereafter Messenger and Advocate), determined that he would write an account of the history of the Church and publish it in installments. This account is both curious and confusing because the first and second installments describe clearly recognizable events leading up to Joseph’s First Vision and Moroni’s visit, but they do not mention the actual visit of the Father and Son. Taken together, the first two installments seem to imply that Joseph’s “first” vision was that of Moroni. For example, the Wikipedia article, “First Vision,” summarizes the Cowdery account as follows:

Therefore, according to Cowdery, the religious confusion led Smith to pray in his bedroom, late on the night of September 23, 1823, after the others had gone to sleep, to know which of the competing denominations was correct and whether “a Supreme being did exist.” In response, an angel appeared and granted him forgiveness of his sins. The remainder of the story roughly parallels Smith’s later description of a visit by an angel in 1823 who told him about the Golden Plates. Thus, Cowdery’s account, containing a single vision, differs from Smith’s 1832 account, which contains two separate visions, one in 1821 prompted by religious confusion (the First Vision) and a separate one regarding the plates on September 22, 1822. [1]

This summary, of course, is not consistent with the story of the First Vision and Moroni’s visit as two distinct events that Joseph described only two years earlier, nor does it match the account that he told in late 1835, less than a year after Oliver’s account was published. What, then, are we to make of Oliver’s convoluted account? Does it really describe a “single vision” as the Wikipedia article claims?

Oliver’s account does indeed raise some questions. Was Oliver unaware of Joseph’s First Vision? Was Oliver in possession of Joseph’s 1832 history? If so, why did Oliver not include the vision in his own history? The answers to these questions may be deduced by examining and comparing Joseph’s 1832 history with Oliver’s 1834/1835 history and with Joseph’s subsequent 1835 journal entry.

To read the rest, please visit

The Cowdery Conundrum: Oliver’s Aborted Attempt to Describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision in 1834 and 1835

on the Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture website.


[1] Wikipedia, s.v. “First Vision,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision as of 27 October 2013. Wikipedia articles are often modified, and this text is subject to change. The date “1821″ referred to with respect to Joseph’s 1832 account is based upon the insertion by Frederick G. Williams of the phrase “in the 16th year of my age,” thus indicating that Joseph was 15 years of age rather than 14. Joseph, however, later corrects his age to 14 in his 1835 journal entry.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

The Prophet and the Pistol: A Perspective on the Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith

November 7, 2013 by RNicholson

The following article was published in The Prophet and the Pistol: A Perspective on the Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, Meridian Magazine, November 7, 2013 and is reprinted with permission.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13

Finding Joseph’s Gun

In the Church History Museum near Temple Square, located inside a glass case, resides a pair of 19th century pistols and a walking stick. The placard reads, in part, as follows,

Joseph’s Pepperbox Pistol and Hyrum’s Single Shot Pistol. These guns were used by both men for their defense during the attack at Carthage

These were the guns that were smuggled into the Carthage Jail while Joseph Smith, Hyrum and their friends awaited their fate. On the morning of June 27, 1844, Cyrus Wheelock visited the jail.

The morning being a little rainy, favoured his wearing an overcoat, in the side pocket of which he was enabled to carry a six-shooter, and he passed the guard unmolested. During his visit in the prison he slipped the revolver into Joseph’s pocket. Joseph examined it, and asked Wheelock if he had not better retain it for his own protection.

This was a providential circumstance, as most other persons had been very rigidly searched. Joseph then handed the single barrel pistol, which had been given him by John S. Fullmer, to his brother Hyrum, and said, “You may have use for this.” Brother Hyrum observed, “I hate to use such things, or to see them used.” “So do I,” said Joseph, “but we may have to, to defend ourselves;” upon this Hyrum took the pistol. [i]

Although it was referred to as a “six shooter,” the pepper-box pistol was not a revolver in the normal sense. It incorporated six individual barrels, it was difficult to aim and tended to be unreliable. The June 2013 Ensign features a painting Greater Love Hath No Man, by Casey Childs. [ii] The artwork features all three items in the display case. Joseph, Hyrum and Willard Richards are attempting to hold the door shut as the mob attempts to enter the room. John Taylor is holding his walking stick. In Hyrum’s left pocket is the single shot pistol brought into the jail by Fullmer, and in Joseph’s left pocket, clearly visible, is the pepper-box pistol given to him by Wheelock. [iii]

Firing Joseph’s Gun

The attack commenced with Hyrum being shot in the face through the door. Hyrum’s pistol was never fired. Willard Richards wrote,

As he struck the floor he exclaimed emphatically; “I’m a dead man.” Joseph looked towards him and responded, “O dear! Brother Hyrum!” and opening the door two or three inches with his left hand, discharged one barrel of a six shooter (pistol) at random in the entry from whence a ball grazed Hyrum’s breast, and entering his throat passed into his head, while other muskets were aimed at him, and some balls hit him. [iv]

Joseph, grief stricken upon seeing the death of his brother, pulled the pepperbox from his pocket, reached around the door frame and blindly attempted to discharge all six rounds from his pistol into the group of men that was attempting to push their way into the room. Only three of the rounds actually fired, but the intruders at the door were packed so closely together that Joseph could not possibly miss. All three of the rounds fired by Joseph apparently found targets, and John Taylor later mistakenly believed that two of the men struck had actually died from their wounds. Taylor wrote that Joseph, “with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed, died.” [v]

The information given to John Taylor was in error, however. Dallin Oaks and Marvin Hill talk of the three men wounded by Joseph.

There were separate indictments for the two murders. Each charged the same nine defendants: John Wills, William Voras….and two men named Gallaher and Allen, whose first names were not given….Wills, Voras, and Gallaher were probably named in the indictment because their wounds, which testimony showed were received at the jail, were irrefutable evidence that they had participated in the mob. They undoubtedly recognized their vulnerability and fled the county. A contemporary witness reported these three as saying that they were the first men at the jail, that one of them shot through the door killing Hyrum, that Joseph wounded all three with his pistol, and that Gallaher shot Joseph as he ran to the window. [vi]

The only men known to have been wounded in the attack would be those on the receiving end of Joseph’s pistol. Dead men, of course, are not indicted, nor do they flee the county.

Talking of Joseph’s Gun

As a missionary in 1979, I often used a filmstrip projector. One of the filmstrips that we often showed to investigators was called “The Martyrdom.” The audio tape accompanying the filmstrip stated that Cyrus Wheelock smuggled a pistol into Carthage Jail and gave it to Joseph. The final frame of the filmstrip ended with Joseph’s testimony, now found in Doctrine and Covenants 76:22-23.

And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father.

Joseph’s use of a gun at the time of the martyrdom was simply part of the story. There was no particular emphasis made of it, nor was there any attempt to diminish the fact that Joseph fired at his attackers. Yet I have spoken with returned missionaries today who are completely unaware that Joseph even had a gun at Carthage Jail. Have references to Joseph’s gun disappeared from Church materials?

A search of lds.org produces a detailed description in the 2003 Church History in the Fulness of Times manual. The manual’s explanation is in accordance with my memory of the filmstrip that I viewed so many years ago,

At the jail, the four brethren sweltered in the sultry afternoon heat. Joseph gave Hyrum a single-shot pistol and prepared to defend himself with the six-shooter smuggled in that morning by Cyrus Wheelock. . . . A bullet fired through the panel of the door struck Hyrum in the left side of his face, and he fell, saying, “I am a dead man!” Joseph, leaning over Hyrum exclaimed, “Oh dear, brother Hyrum!” John Taylor said the look of sorrow he saw on Joseph’s face was forever imprinted on his mind. Joseph then stepped to the door, reached around the door casing, and discharged his six-shooter into the crowded hall. Only three of the six chambers fired, wounding three assailants. [vii]

A picture of the two pistols appears in the manual with the following description:

The Prophet used this six-shooter, called a “pepper-box,” to defend himself and his fellow prisoners. John S. Fullmer took this single-barrel pistol into the jail, but it was never used by the prisoners. [viii]

But that is not all. The Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual for 2005: “Doctrine and Covenants and Church History” lesson 32, page 184 has the following account of the martyrdom by Elder Willard Richards:

As he struck the floor he exclaimed emphatically, ‘I am a dead man.’ Joseph looked towards him and responded, ‘Oh, dear brother Hyrum!’ and opening the door two or three inches with his left hand, discharged one barrel of a six shooter (pistol) at random in the entry. . .Joseph continued snapping his revolver round the casing of the door into the space as before, while Mr. Taylor with a walking stick stood by his side and knocked down the bayonets and muskets which were constantly discharging through the doorway….

When the revolver failed, we had no more firearms, and expected an immediate rush of the mob, and the doorway full of muskets, half way in the room, and no hope but instant death from within.

Thomas S. Monson in the First Presidency Message of the June 1994 Ensign, notes that “the Prophet Joseph, with his pistol in hand, was attempting to defend his life and that of his brethren.” [ix]

There does not seem to be any lack of reference to the pistol or the manner in which it was used in current Church materials. Additional accounts are found in the Times and Seasons, the History of the Church, and the video The Joseph Smith Papers, The Martyrdom Of Joseph And Hyrum Smith – Episode 49.[x]

Why did the Saints feel the need to defend themselves?

Why would Joseph and those with him feel that they needed to have weapons to defend themselves? In order to understand this, it is necessary to understand why Joseph ended up in jail in the first place.

The event that landed Joseph in jail was the order of the Nauvoo City council to destroy the printing press of the Nauvoo Expositor. The editors of the Expositor, among whom was former First Presidency member William Law, made the intentions of the paper very clear:

We are earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph Smith, and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms; which we verily know are not accordant and consonant with the principles of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.” [xi]

The Expositor called for the “unconditional repeal of the Nauvoo City charter,” and encouraged members of the Church to reject Joseph Smith as its leader, noting that:

We hereby notify all those holding licenses to preach the gospel, who know they are guilty of teaching the doctrine of other Gods above the God of this creation; the plurality of wives; the unconditional sealing up against all crimes, save that of shedding innocent blood; the spoiling of the gentiles, and all other doctrines, (so called) which are contrary to the laws of God , or to the laws of our country, to cease preaching.” [xii]

The publication of the Expositor incited “anger and fear in Nauvoo: anger for its vilification of the Prophet and its accusations against other Church leaders; fear from its call for a repeal of the Nauvoo charter so that local government would be taken out of the hands of the Saints.” [xiii]

Thus, the paper was declared a “nuisance” by the Nauvoo City council, and the press was subsequently destroyed. This ultimately resulted in Joseph being brought up on charges of treason, and his subsequent trip to Carthage to await trial.

“Let it be made with powder and ball!!!”

Was the mob that stormed the jail that day doing so because they were each outraged over an apparent attack on freedom of the press? Not really. The destruction of the Expositor was simply a trigger, and it was used as leverage to great effect. The Expositor was destroyed on June 10, 1844. The following day, Thomas B. Sharp, editor of the Warsaw Signal, printed an editorial titled simply “The Time has Come!”

War and extermination is inevitable! Citizens ARISE, ONE and ALL!!!—Can you stand by, and suffer such INFERNAL DEVILS! to ROB men of their property and RIGHTS, without avenging them. We have no time for comment, every man will make his own. LET IT BE MADE WITH POWDER AND BALL!!! [xiv]

In Sharp’s mind, the “time had come” to deal with Joseph Smith and the Mormons. Things did not reach this level simply because of the Expositor. On June 5, the week before the destruction of the Expositor, Sharp had published a diatribe against Joseph,

Joe, you are [the] very thing you accuse Messrs. Van Buren, Clay and Calhoon of being; and more, we do not believe that even your blackguard pen, or rather that of your man Friday’s, (for no one would accuse you of being able to put two sentences in the English Language together correctly,) can picture a wretch so depraved, and loathsome as yourself. Yos Joe! we have that confidence in your saintship, that we do not believe that the concentrated extract of all the abominations of the Infernal Regions, can add one stain to the blackness of your character. Look in a mirror Joe and you will see the reflection of the most detestable wretch that the earth contains. [xv]

The tinder had already been laid, and the destruction of the Expositor was the match that ignited it. It is no surprise that Joseph and those who supported him would feel the need to provide some defense against a possible armed attack.

Does Joseph qualify as a martyr?

There is no doubt that Joseph attempted to defend himself and his friends using a firearm, and that this is attested to abundantly within Church publications. Does this mean that he does not qualify as a “martyr”? Joseph said, “I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I shall die innocent, and it shall yet be said of me—he was murdered in cold blood.” [xvi] Did Joseph lose martyr status when he attempted to fight back?

Critics of the Church chose to portray the martyrdom as a “gun battle” between Joseph and those who were trying to enter the room. The term “gun battle” evokes a certain mental image, often fueled by depictions in movies, of an intense back-and-forth exchange of shots. It is not usually represented by a few individuals trapped in a room, desperately trying to keep themselves from being murdered. Joseph’s group had two pistols and a walking stick against a large, well-armed mob. Joseph firing off three shots at his attackers after witnessing the murder of his brother hardly constitutes a “gun battle,” and Joseph no doubt knew that it would make little difference. What effect did the presence of Joseph’s gun have on the attackers? It was no doubt a temporary deterrent, and it may have contributed to sparing the lives of John Taylor and Willard Richards, since the mob had no way of knowing if there were other weapons in the room as well. What is more likely to have saved their lives, however, is Joseph choosing to go to the window. The mob focused on the true object of their murderous quest, and Taylor and Richard’s lives were spared.

The definition of “martyr,” according to Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary is: “One who, by his death, bears witness to the truth of the gospel. Stephen was the first Christian martyr. To be a martyr signifies only to witness the truth of Christ.” [xvii]

John Taylor, who was seriously wounded in the attack and a firsthand witness to these events, certainly considered Joseph and Hyrum martyrs:

To seal the testimony of this book and the Book of Mormon, we announce the martyrdom of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and Hyrum Smith the Patriarch. They were shot in Carthage jail, on the 27th of June, 1844, about five o’clock p.m., by an armed mob—painted black—of from 150 to 200 persons. Hyrum was shot first and fell calmly, exclaiming: I am a dead man! Joseph leaped from the window, and was shot dead in the attempt, exclaiming: O Lord my God! They were both shot after they were dead, in a brutal manner, and both received four balls. [xviii]

Elder D. Todd Christofferson offers this perspective,

Martyrdom endows a prophet’s testimony with a special validity. Indeed the Greek root “martureo” from which the English word “martyr” is derived means “witness.” The prophet Abinadi is described as “having sealed the truth of his words by his death.” Jesus’ own death was a testament of His divinity and mission. He is declared in Hebrews to be “the mediator of the new testament” validated by His death, “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead.” [xix]

The fact that Joseph defended himself and his friends from those who were trying to kill them does not in any way diminish the importance of the sacrifice that Joseph and Hyrum ultimately made. Joseph had faced death before. Joseph and Hyrum had earlier had the opportunity to escape to Iowa, but instead chose to go to Carthage, knowing the probable outcome. This was not an act of cowardice. Joseph was no doubt aware that two pistols that they possessed in the jail would ultimately fail to hold back an armed mob.

Elder Christofferson states that Joseph’s death validated his testament:

Like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient time, [Joseph Smith] sealed his mission and his works with his own blood.” In a hail of bullets on the afternoon of June 27, 1844, in Carthage, Illinois, Joseph and his brother, Hyrum, were cut down for the religion and testimony they professed. As the latter-day apostles then announced, “The testators are now dead, and their testament is in force.[xx]

Joseph knew that he might someday be required to die in order to seal his testament, and yet he knew also that Jesus Christ had made the ultimate sacrifice. The words of Doctrine and Covenants 122:7-9, which Joseph received during the many grueling months he spent in Liberty Jail, seem particularly appropriate. Joseph wanted to know if his ordeal would ever end, and the Lord gave him glimpse of the future, while reminding him of who made the true sacrifice:

And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.

The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?

Therefore, hold on thy way, and the priesthood shall remain with thee; for their bounds are set, they cannot pass. Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever. [xxi]

For further information regarding Joseph’s gun and the martyrdom, including an extensive list of Church publications which mention the weapon, please see the FairMormon Answers articles
Was Joseph Smith not a martyr because he fired a gun at his attackers? and Has the Church tried to hide the fact that Joseph fired a pepperbox pistol at the mob which murdered him?
_________________________________
[i] The Latter-Day Saints Millennial Star, Vol. 24, No. 29, (July 19, 1862) 459.

[ii] Casey Childs, Greater Love Hath No Man, Oil on Linen, 60×48″. The artist has documented the meticulous process by which he created a historically accurate representation of the moment just before Hyrum was shot. This included researching the pistols that Joseph and Hyrum were carrying in their pockets.

[iii] LaRene Porter Gaunt, “Two Witnesses, Three Days And the Aftermath of the Martyrdom,” Ensign, June 2013, 40.

[iv] Willard Richards, “Two Minutes in Jail,” Times and Seasons, Vol.5, No.14, (1. Aug. 1844) 598.

[v] John Taylor, quote in Hubert Hugh Bancroft, History of Utah 1540-1887, 179.

[vi] Oaks, Dallin H., and Marvin S. Hill. Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1975, 51-52.

[vii] Church History in the Fulness of Times, 281-2.

[viii] Church History in the Fulness of Times, 281.

[ix] Thomas S. Monson, “The Prophet Joseph Smith: Teacher by Example,” Ensign, June 1994.

[x] Times and Seasons, 5/14 (1 August 1844): 597-98; Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 7:102–103; The Joseph Smith Papers, The Martyrdom Of Joseph And Hyrum Smith – Episode 49

[xi] Nauvoo Expositor.

[xii] Nauvoo Expositor.

[xiii] “Highlights in the Prophet’s Life,” Ensign, June 1994.

[xiv] Thomas B. Sharp, “The Time has Come!”, The Warsaw Signal, June 11, 1844.

[xv] Thomas B. Sharp, “Joe Smith and Henry Clay,” The Warsaw Signal, June 5, 1844.

[xvi] Doctrine and Covenants 135:4.

[xvii] Noah Webster, Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 Edition

[xviii] Doctrine and Covenants 135:1.

[xix] Elder D. Todd Christofferson, “”The Prophet Joseph Smith”,” Brigham Young University-Idaho Devotional, (24 September 2013)

[xx] Christofferson.

[xxi] Doctrine and Covenants 122:7-9.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

FAIR responds to FutureMissionary.com

June 20, 2013 by RNicholson

The website FutureMissionary.com is designed to shake the faith of prospective missionaries by blindsiding them with troubling issues related to Church history. The site’s anonymous authors claim to be returned missionaries, and write as though they are “believing” members who naively accept and promote controversial statements and ideas without question.

The most prominent and detailed page on the website is “A Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony.” The authors claim that such blatant materials will help to prepare missionaries for questions and challenges they will face. In reality, the letter and other material on the site only introduce attacks on the church without discussing crucial context and explanations that would help readers fully understand the material.

The approach and tone of the FutureMissionary site resembles that of MormonThink.com before MormonThink became openly antagonistic toward the Church in late 2012.

Continue reading on FAIRMormon.org >

Filed Under: Anti-Mormon critics, News from FAIR

The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation

June 14, 2013 by RNicholson

Editor’s note: This blog post is the introductory section of Roger Nicholson’s June 2013 article in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture (The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation). The full article may be read on the Interpreter website.

In his 1916 book, The Birth of Mormonism, John Quincy Adams provided this rather colorful description of the Book of Mormon translation method.

The process of translating the “reformed Egyptian” plates was simple though peculiar. It was all done with the Urim and Thummim spectacles, but it was instant death for any one but Joe to use them. Even when he put them on, the light became so dazzling that he was obliged to look through his hat. Moreover, when so engaged, no profane eyes were allowed to see him or the hat. Alone, behind a blanket stretched across the room, Joe looked into his hat and read the mystic words.[1]

Any Latter-day Saint will immediately be able to sort the familiar from the unfamiliar elements of this story. We see the Urim and Thummim and the blanket shielding the translator from others in the room, but what is all of this talk about a hat?

As an active Latter-day Saint, I cannot remember a time when I was not familiar with the story of the translation of the Book of Mormon. The story with which we are quite familiar from Sunday School and Seminary describes Joseph using the Urim and Thummim (the Nephite interpreters) to look at the gold plates while screened from his scribe by a curtain. Joseph dictated the entire text of the Book of Mormon to his scribe, picking up the next day right where he had left off the day before, and the text was written without any punctuation. Joseph never required that any of the previous text be re-read when the translation started again the next day. The bulk of the translation was accomplished within a roughly three-month period, and the resulting text is remarkably consistent not only with itself, but with the Bible. The circumstances surrounding the translation and production of the Book of Mormon can only be considered miraculous when considered by a believing member of the Church.

There is, however, another story with which many have become familiar in recent years. Modern portrayals of the translation process such as that shown in the popular animated television show South Park[1] depict Joseph looking at a stone in the bottom of his hat and dictating to his scribe, without the use of a curtain. The popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia displays a “twenty-first century artistic representation of Joseph Smith translating the golden plates by examining a seer stone in his hat.”[3] A Google search of “Book of Mormon translation” or “seer stone Joseph Smith” produces a large number of such images, many of them hosted by websites that are critical of the Church’s truth claims. This is a method which I did not learn about in Seminary, and there are anecdotal stories of Latter-day Saints who, upon being presented with this portrayal, simply deny that this method may have ever been employed, attributing such depictions to “anti-Mormon” sources.

Depictions of the translation process by artists have also contributed to the confusion. Latter-day Saints are quite familiar with a variety of artistic portrayals of Joseph and Oliver as they participated in the translation process. Some depict Joseph and his scribe sitting at a table with a curtain across the middle. Others show Joseph and Oliver sitting together at a table, with no curtain in view and the plates clearly visible, yet we know that Oliver was not allowed to view the plates prior to acting as one of the Three Witnesses. One thing that these scenes have in common is that they do not depict the Urim and Thummim, despite the fact that we know that a translation instrument was used during the process. We see no crystal stones mounted in a set of “spectacles,” nor do we see the breastplate.[4]  We certainly never see Joseph gazing into the bottom of his hat while dictating.

The twenty-first century has given us access to a wealth of historical sources that were simply unavailable to the average Latter-day Saint in previous decades. Now one must ask the question: Which of these portrayals is correct? In searching for an answer, we start with a modern Church manual in order to provide us with our first clue. The following description of the translation process appears in the 2003 Church History In The Fulness Of Times Student Manual (hereafter referred to as the Student Manual).

Little is known about the actual process of translating the record, primarily because those who knew the most about the translation, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, said the least about it. Moreover, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Emma Smith, who assisted Joseph, left no contemporary descriptions. The sketchy accounts they recorded much later in life were often contradictory.[5]

It makes perfect sense that those who were directly involved in or observed the translation would have the most accurate information. What, then, did these witnesses say that appears to have been contradictory? Were there other witnesses that can shed light on these events? What did outside sources have to say about the translation process? As Latter-day Saint researcher Brant Gardner summarizes it, “What stories shall we believe? What stories of the translation could we or should we tell? Which stories are true? For this last question, I would suggest that they are all true. That is, they are true for the people who are telling them.”[6]

To read the rest, please visit

The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation

on the Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture website.


[1] John Quincy Adams, The Birth of Mormonism (Boston: Gorham Press, 1916), 36.

[2] South Park Season 7, Episode 12, “All About Mormons” originally broadcast on 19 November 2003.

[3] Wikipedia article “Seer Stone (Latter Day Saints).”

[4] For example, the illustrated Book of Mormon Stories (1978) shows Joseph and a scribe separated by a curtain. Joseph is looking directly at the plates without using a translating instrument. The Book of Mormon Reader (1985) and Book of Mormon Stories (1997) both replace this scene with one of Joseph and his scribe sitting at a table in the open, with the plates clearly in view. No attempt by the artist is made to depict the Urim and Thummim. There exists one image that may be found on the Internet which depicts Joseph Smith using the breastplate and spectacles, which is claimed to be from a “1970s” edition of the Book of Mormon Reader. A collection of images representative of the various ways the translation process has been depicted may be viewed on Blair Hodges’ Life on Gold Plates blog, “The ‘Stone-In-Hat’ Translation Method in Art,” posted on October 27, 2009.http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2009/10/stone-in-hat-translation-method-in-art.html.

[5] Church History in the Fulness of Times Student Manual (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2003), 58.

[6] Brant A. Gardner, The Gift and the Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Draper, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2011), 8.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Wikipedia’s Deconstruction of Martin Harris

January 23, 2013 by RNicholson

Editor’s note: This blog post is a reprint Roger Nicholson’s two-part article in Meridian Magazine (part 1, part 2), and is published here with their kind permission.

The Martin Harris We Know

Every Latter-day Saint who has attended Sunday School is familiar with the story of Martin Harris. We learn that Martin was a relatively wealthy man for the area in which he lived, and that he mortgaged his farm to finance the publication of the Book of Mormon. The importance of this act cannot be underestimated,

The cost of printing 5,000 copies of the Book of Mormon was $3,000—a huge sum (approximately $73,000 in today’s economy). It was simply impossible for the Smith family to raise even a small fraction of that amount. But Martin… proved his devotion once again by pledging his valuable farm to cover the tremendous expense.[1]

We also learn of Martin’s honesty. Despite his support for the prophet, Martin still wanted assurance that Joseph Smith was truly able to translate the ancient record contained on the gold plates. Martin carried a transcription of some of the characters from the plates to Charles Anthon, and Dr. Anthon fulfilled Biblical prophecy by claiming that he could not read a sealed book.

We also know that Martin was far from perfect. He was, in fact, referred to several times in the revelation comprising Doctrine and Covenants Section 10 as a “wicked man,” [Read more…] about Wikipedia’s Deconstruction of Martin Harris

Filed Under: Book of Mormon, LDS History

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe to Blog

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


RSS-Icon RSS Feed (all posts)

Subscribe to Podcast

Podcast icon
Subscribe to podcast in iTunes
Subscribe to podcast elsewhere
Listen with FairMormon app
Android app on Google Play

Pages

  • Blog Guidelines

FairMormon Latest

  • Come Follow Me Week Three: The Turning of Hearts
  • Joseph Smith’s First Vision
  • Willing to Be Weak
  • FairMormon Finances
  • FAIR Voice Podcast #25: Interview with Blake Ostler

Blog Categories

Recent Comments

  • Neal Smith on FAIR Voice Podcast #25: Interview with Blake Ostler
  • Debbi Rollo on Joseph Smith’s First Vision
  • Glenn Thigpen on Willing to Be Weak
  • Rob Peters on Joseph Smith’s First Vision
  • Wendy Ulrich on Willing to Be Weak

Archives

Footer

FairMormon Logo

FairMormon is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Our Friends

  • Book of Mormon Central
  • BYU Religious Studies Center
  • BYU Studies
  • Interpreter Foundation
  • LDS Perspectives Podcast
  • Pearl of Great Price Central

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • iTunes
  • YouTube

Donate to FairMormon

We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.

Donate Now

Donate to us by shopping at Amazon at no extra cost to you. Learn how →

Site Footer

Copyright © 1997-2021 by The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

No portion of this site may be reproduced without the express written consent of The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc.

Any opinions expressed, implied, or included in or with the goods and services offered by FairMormon are solely those of FairMormon and not those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) Logo

FairMormon™ is controlled and operated by the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR)