Comments on: From the Archives: Joseph Smith or the Sword!?

By: Eric Boysen

Eric Boysen — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:27:00 +0000

I really admire the careful construction of the language used in the quotes in Brad’s #12. All three are clear about the inspiration behind Islam as coming from God to face down the idolatry of apostate Christianity while not endorsing Mohammad as a true prophet. There is much that I have read in the Koran that I can endorse, but equally there are many things that stand in opposition to the Gospel, particularly in the nature of the Savior. “Allah has no companion.” The biggest obstacle to teaching the Gospel to Muslims, however, is their insistence that Mohammed is the seal of the prophets.

By: David Grua

David Grua — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:57:32 +0000

OB Server: Thanks for the comment. Let me just say that the documentation provided is severely flawed, but I’m really not interested in engaging it at this time.

That’s an interesting IP address that you’re writing from. Say hi to Jack Chick when you see him, from the Juvenile Instructor.

By: OB Server

OB Server — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:53:10 +0000

Please pardon my error. I added a period at the end of the weblinks. I didn’t know the post would act differently from a Word doc or the Chick website. They should say this:

http://www.chick.com/catalog/comics/0118doc.asp
http://www.books.google.com
http://help4rlds.com/mohammed.htm

Sorry for the messed up links. This is new to me!

By: OB Server

OB Server — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:45:22 +0000

Though Joseph Smith is dressed up in Nauvoo Legion attire, the Chick comic book (unlike what you allege for the movie “September Dawn”) actually gets the date right for the alleged words of Joseph Smith.

P. 22 of The Enchanter talks first about February of 1834. The middle panel begins, “Over the next four years Joseph tried to build his army…” That adds up to 1838.

P. 23 of The Enchanter doesn’t give a date, but it can be assumed it is still 1838, because two pages later (p. 25)it talks about Nauvoo, saying, “By 1839 they settled in Illinois and built a city called “Nauvoo.”

So while these Gentiles may have erred in the form of dress Joseph wore, unlike the movie “September Dawn” (as you allege), they got the *date* right: late 1838, vs. 1844 at the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor (which is found on p. 28, panel 1 of their comic).

Further, I found Chick Publications did what they could to document their claims on their website at this page:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/comics/0118doc.asp.

What they wrote on that panel online is this:

PAGE 23, panel #3

Joseph’s “Second Muhammad” speech

On October 14, 1838, Joseph Smith called himself a “second Muhammad” as he was concluding a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri. Those words have been verified by affidavits from Thomas B. Marsh,69 Orson Hyde (from Joseph’s Quorum of the Twelve), George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps (a major leader in the Mormon church), Samson Avard (founder of the Danites), and Reed Peck.70

69For the full affidavit of Thomas B. Marsh, see The Rocky Mountain Saints by T. B. H. Stenhouse (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1873), pp. 89-90. Available as a free download from http://www.books.google.com.

70 See No Man Knows My History, pp. 230-231. See also “I Will Be a Second Mohammed” at http://help4rlds.com/Mohammed.htm.

I can be a little more charitable when I see an unbeliever has at least made an effort to get at facts, whether erroneous or not.

Check it out for yourself and see what you think.

By: David Grua

David Grua — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:23:36 +0000

Mark: There is some support for your reading of Corrill’s statement in Orson Spencer’s letters. Spencer here is addressing critics that compare the legion and its commander to Mohammed. Spencer doesn’t refer directly to Corrill (whose November 1838 testimony was by this time available in print), but the language closely reflects Corrill’s claim.

I can assure you that neither Mr. Smith, nor any other intelligent Latter Day Saint, ever intends to make one convert by the sword. (Times and Seasons, January 2, 1843, 57)

By: Mark Ashurst-McGee

Mark Ashurst-McGee — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:04:56 +0000

Thanks to David and Justin for putting together this collection of quotations. Smith’s alleged comment was apparently at the very end of June, just after the dissenters were driven. It fits, then, just between Rigdon’s late-mid June Salt Sermon and his 4 July Independence Day sermon–both of which Smith apparently approved of. Marsh’s claim that Smith said “he should yet tread down his enemies, and walk over their dead bodies” sounds like the “good for nothing but to be trodden under foot of men” language of the salt-having-lost-its-savor parable. The alleged statement along the lines of “if the people would let us alone” we would do likewise but if not I will become another Muhammed and conquer them follows precisely the warning the Rigdon gave on the fourth of July (minus the Muhammed analogy). Rigdon said that if attacked again the Mormons would carry the war to the door of their enemy. The question then arises of who is the enemy. The logic of the redeeming Zion revelation (now D&C 101) begins with the offending Missouri county and its judge, moves through the state governor, and ends with the President and the United States (which at that time stretched from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean). This was the extreme possible outcome of combining the redeeming Zion revelation and the 4th of July sermon. As Marsh puts it, “so should it be eventually with us”. So I can imagine the possiblity of Smith saying SOMETHING along these lines. Exactly what is hard to say. The salt sermon rhetoric applies better to dissident insiders than to outsiders so I wonder if Marsh has spliced that in. In all but the Corrill account, the “if the people would let him alone” line is too consistent and probably shaped by memories of the later oral delivery and printed version of the Independence Day sermon. The account by Corrill, usually a more balanced voice of dissent (compare Reed Peck), sounds the least accurate to me. He applies the Mohamet line to establishing the gospel and making converts by force. That’s not Smith.

By: David Grua

David Grua — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:35:47 +0000

Sam: Thanks for bringing Fluhman into the discussion. I agree that that context is important to consider here.

Where are you and Matt going to submit the paper?

By: brown

brown — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:54:27 +0000

Smith did have a military streak and a temper that could overflow into violent self defense. It’s important, though, to situate all of this within antebellum Christianity. Many Protestants saw their form of Christianity as true _because_ it was dominant–their cultural superiority in the United States was an “external evidence” of the validity of their brand of Christianity. Islam was known to be a major world religion, which would tend to interfere with this external evidence, so explanations of Mohammed emphasized that he required violence to establish his hold in various countries. He was, of course, an “impostor” or “false prophet,” situated among a litany of para-Christian false prophets, so Protestants merely had to deal with the issue of Islam’s numerical predominance elsewhere to discount him entirely.

Joseph Smith was in a similar position, having to argue with Protestants about the ‘evidences’ of his authority. Characterizations of Mormons as violent not only served to justify anti-Mormon violence, it also served to join him to the history of violent false prophets, thus negating the ‘evidence’ of Mormon validity manifested by their growing popularity and their distinctive appropriation of the Biblical witness.

Comparisons to Mohammed would have been a natural part of this battle against evangelicals for Christian legitimacy, and defending Mohammed would have been important as an act of intellectual self defense. I have a memory of better 1840s source for discussions of Mohammed but will have to look for it.

Incidentally, Matt Bowman and I are working on a paper on these issues that should be done in a few weeks. I recommend Spencer Fluhman’s PhD dissertation from some insight into the nature of the early anti-Mormon dialectic–large numbers of critics were comparing Smith to Mohammed among others.

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 03:32:56 +0000

Mark, J was making the “Upper Case Prophet” point that I made in regard to the temple recommend interview. In that interview, the question as written distinguishes between “the Prophet” and the other prophets, seers and revelators. Many members don’t realize that the first is capitalized, while the other is not. Gordon B. Hinckley was not set apart and sustained as the “Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” – but rather as the “President of the Church . . .” The interview draws attention to the fact that he is the presiding prophet and needs to be supported by the temple attending members as such, but the requirement for the general membership is only support of his role as President.

That’s a truly interesting distinction, imo.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 03:29:39 +0000

Mark, no doubt that the First Presdency, Q12 and Presiding Patriarch have been sustained as “prophets, seers and revelators.” Perhaps such verbiage is used in their being set apart. Unless I am mistaken, however, I don’t believe that there is an office of Seer or Revelator.

It has been a while, but the Q12 and FP used to be ordained as Apostles then set apart in their various quorums and callings. Then it seems to me that it was McKay that was the first to be ordained as President since Joseph. Anyway, I’m not sure how much that really matters. I don’t think that the attributes of a calling become offices themselves. No?