The Character of Joseph Smith

Have you ever stopped to consider just how much stock you have placed in the character and integrity of Joseph Smith? I, personally, am wholly committed to the idea that he was a prophet of God, and I know that most of you readers are as well. Joseph was visited by the Father and the Son. He was tutored by angels. He found and translated a remarkable ancient record that quite independently confirms the authenticity of Christianity and the existence and ministrations of the Father and the resurrected Christ. He brought forth, again, on earth the doctrine and Church of Jesus Christ to an otherwise misguided, misinformed world in desperate need of the complete truth. Joseph established that Church and prophesied that it would persist until the Lord’s Second Coming as the one and only true kingdom of God on the earth. He then guided that much beleaguered Church through its early years, from 1830 to 1844. He was enabled to provide whole collections of new scripture by a process almost akin to heavenly dictation. As he accomplished all of these things he enjoyed the incalculable blessing of directly revealed help from the Lord.

Joseph simply must have been telling the truth about all matters pertaining to the Church and its restoration. All our eternal hopes and dreams depend on it. If we were to learn he was not meticulously truthful, we would be bereft and lost. All our concepts about the purpose of life on this earth would go up in smoke. We can’t have it both ways. There is no middle ground in this matter. Joseph was either one of the most vital prophets in the history of this earth or he was a despicable charlatan who has foisted onto us believers a horribly cruel hoax—one that could even render our lives questionably worth living.

It is most important that we become thoroughly acquainted with Joseph Smith, Jr. and his family, even at a distance of over one hundred and fifty years. What was he really like? What were they like—in what kind of a family was he reared? What lessons was he taught in his youth? In what type of family environment was he nurtured? What were his aspirations, his goals, his motivations? We simply must come to trust him. After all, we have literally laid our eternal souls in his hands.

A most positive image of Joseph commonly prevails in the Church. He was a leader of physical prowess and vigorous manhood. He was a profound idealist with spontaneous humor and warmth. He displayed personal courage under tremendous odds. However, the view provided by some books about him is in sharp contrast with this one. There are and have been several among us who would call the integrity of Joseph and his family into question. The image of Joseph Smith, Jr. painted by his enemies is sharply different than that provided us by his sympathetic friends. Joseph was a topic of warm controversy even in his own day and in his own community.

Our initial inclination is to angrily dismiss all negative charges against him out of hand and pay them no further attention. In this chapter, however, I will not. I will give the detractors their say. The purpose of this chapter is to examine carefully and discuss thoroughly the pros and cons of all of the accusations, derogatory claims, and bitter diatribes of the anti-Mormons. Do they have any merit? Is there any truth at all to them? Why have the negative claims been made in the first place? I believe it’s important that if we are to reject their claims, we must be well-informed and not ignorant of the allegations and the motivations and logic of those who made them.

As resources for this chapter, I have drawn heavily upon two helpful articles. The first is “Joseph Smith’s New York Reputation Reappraised” by Richard Lloyd Anderson (BYU Studies, volume 10, 1969-70, 283-314). Dr. Anderson is professor of history and religion at Brigham Young University. He holds degrees in the fields of law, Greek, and ancient history, and has concentrated his research on New Testament and the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. The second article is “The Joseph Smith, Sr., Family: Farmers of the Genesee” by Donald L. Enders (Joseph Smith: The Prophet, The Man. ed. Susan Easton Black and Charles D. Tate, Jr., Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1993, 213-225). Dr. Enders was senior curator at the Museum of Church History and Art in Salt Lake City, Utah, when this article was written and published.

As we discuss the statements and opinions of others regarding Joseph and his family, it would be appropriate and fair to hold these others to a reasonable standard. This standard will include the following: Was the observer the right age to have direct contact with Joseph? Was the contact close or distant? Was the contact direct and first-hand, or is the observer reporting, as his own opinions, second or third-hand contacts? The basic qualification for any historical source is firsthand contact with the person or event described. Yet the anti-Joseph Smith statements of contemporaries show a distinct tendency to report community rumor, not personal experience. Finally, what is the bias of the source? Historians today recognize that no observer is free from bias, but intense prejudice tends to exaggeration. One must therefore be rigorous in examining the factual basis of the conclusions of Joseph Smith’s contemporaries, particularly those who were bitterly antagonistic.

#The Accusations

Perhaps the major source of negative comments about Joseph Smith and his family by his contemporaries can be traced to the book, Mormonism Unvailed [sic], published in 1834 by the Painesville, Ohio, editor Eber D. Howe. He published several affidavits gathered by D. Philastrus Hurbut from villagers in Palmyra and Manchester.

This book has become the virtual cornerstone of anti-Mormon historiography. Howe himself reported, forty-four years after publication of his book in his memoirs, that his book “has been the basis of all the histories which have appeared from time to time since that period touching that people” (Eber D. Howe, Autobiography and Recollections of a Pioneer Printer, Painesville, Ohio, 1878, 45). The Palmyra-Manchester affidavits published in Howe’s book have introduced Joseph Smith in every major non-Mormon study from 1834 to the present. Curiously absent, from Howe’s book and all subsequent references to it, is any investigation of the individuals behind the Hurlbut affidavits.

The affidavits in Mormonism Unvailed uniformly paint a negative picture of Joseph and his family. The following charges are leveled against them: They are (1) “money diggers,” (2) liars, (3) lazy and indolent, (4) intemperate, and (5) immoral. What of these charges? Were they the fabrications of a dedicated anti-Mormon with intent to defame? Was there any truth to them? Were the signers (if they were not the authors of the affidavits, at least they were the ratifiers) tricked into signing? Or, did they have sincere misgivings about the Smiths? Did the affidavits accurately reflect their true opinions?

Our approach to this discussion will be as follows. We will first consider the individual who collected the affidavits and some particulars about those documents he gathered. He is well-known to have had a decidedly anti-Mormon bias, and it is only fair that this be pointed out. We will then consider each of the specific complaints in turn to determine any merit or absence of merit in them.

#D. Philastrus Hurbut

Hurlbut was excommunicated twice by LDS tribunals for immorality. He became so personally vindictive that he was put under a court order restraining him from doing harm to the person or property of Joseph Smith (For a more complete discussion of Hurlbut’s personal vindictiveness, see Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Reliability of the Early History of Lucy and Joseph Smith”, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, volume 4, Summer 1969, 15). He was “employed” by an anti-Mormon public committee to gather evidence to “completely divest Joseph Smith of all claims to the character of an honest man. . .” (“To the Public,” official committee statement published in the Painesville Telegraph, January 31, 1834). To achieve this goal he traveled to New York and procured signed statements at Palmyra Village, the largest business center adjacent to the Smith farm and also at Manchester Village.

Hurlbut’s general affidavits. Hurlbut prepared two general, or community, affidavits and invited signatures upon them. One was signed by eleven residents of Manchester. The other was signed by fifty-one residents of Palmyra. Again, we are reminded that the signers of these affidavits were not authors, but merely ratifiers.

When Hurlbut appeared in the Manchester schoolhouse, he undoubtedly had penned the statement that eleven rather nonliterary farmers signed. One would envision basically the same procedure as inevitable for the fifty-one signers from Palmyra.

Hurlbut’s individual affidavits. Hurlbut also gathered thirteen individual affidavits, each signed by an individual. They included: Joseph Capron, Parley Chase,

Willard Chase, Abigail Harris, Henry Harris, Lucy Harris, Peter Ingersoll, Roswell Nichols, Barton Stafford, David Stafford, Joshua Stafford, William Stafford, and G. W. Stoddard. Only ten of these, however, are pertinent. The following three are excluded from consideration: Lucy Harris talks only of her husband, Martin Harris. G. W. Stoddard’s single sentence on the Smiths is merely a gratuitous comment: “The Smith family never made any pretensions to respectability.” And Abigail Harris reports a single conversation with Lucy Smith that is strictly not relevant to the character of Joseph Smith. For Abigail’s evident tendency to maliciousness, see Hugh Nibley, The Myth Makers, Salt Lake City, 1961, 20-22.

One fact about the details of the affidavits pointed out in some detail by Richard Lloyd Anderson in his article references above is that there exists evidence that Hurlbut heavily influenced the wording of some of the individual affidavits. Ideally, we might expect the individual affidavits to have been composed by each of the individual signers. If Hurlbut had a role in the writing of these individual affidavits, that might lessen their significance. This evidence is found in the fact that the wording in some of the individual affidavits shows specific similarities to the wording in the two general affidavits. These latter two were composed by Hurlbut himself. It appears that Hurlbut “put words into the mouths” of those individuals who signed personal affidavits.

Dr. Anderson points out that the affidavits not only contained similar shared phrases, but more importantly the basic structures of the affidavits were similar even though they purportedly originated from different authors.

I desire to provide the reader with an example of these similarities. Hence, I will reproduce here two documents, the general Palmyra affidavit and the individual affidavit of Parley Chase.

#General Palmyra affidavit:

We, the undersigned, have been acquainted with the Smith family, for a number of years, while they resided near this place, and we have no hesitation in saying, that we consider them destitute of that moral character, which ought to entitle them to the confidence of any community. They were particularly famous for visionary projects, spent much of their time in digging for money which they pretended was hid in the earth; and to this day, large excavations may be seen in the earth, not far from their residence, where they used to spend their time in digging for hidden treasures. Joseph Smith, Senior, and his son, Joseph, were in particular, considered entirely destitute of moral character and addicted to vicious habits. . . .

It was not supposed that any of them were possessed of sufficient character or influence to make any one believe their book or their sentiments, and we know not of a single individual in this vicinity that puts the least confidence in their pretended revelations.

#Parley Chase affidavit:

I was acquainted with the family of Joseph Smith, Sen. both before and since they became Mormons, and feel free to state that not one of the male members of the Smith family were entitled to any credit whatsoever. . . . Digging for money was their principal employment. . . . They were lazy, intemperate and worthless men, very much addicted to lying. In this they frequently boasted of their skill.

In regard to their Gold Bible speculation they scarcely ever told two stories alike. The Mormon Bible is said to be a revelation from God, through Joseph Smith, Jr., his Prophet, and this same Joseph Smith, Jr. to my knowledge, bore the reputation among his neighbors of being a liar.

The foregoing statement can be corroborated by all his former neighbors.

The words italicized in the above comparisons illustrate equivalent portions of the two affidavits. Both documents progress formally through a recital of an acquaintance with the Smiths, their disreputability in the community, money digging, and being “addicted to” evil practices. Both close with application of general character to religious claims and the assertion that no one in that area takes them seriously. It is highly unlikely that Parley Chase would write following the identical outline of Hurlbut’s Palmyra affidavit—rather Hurlbut composed both. For further details of these similarities, please see Dr. Anderson’s article, referenced above.

#The Specific Complaints

The crucial issue here is not signatures or even affidavits. The real issue is the honest individual feelings of these individuals about Joseph Smith and his family. Also, if they harbored ill feelings, were there valid reasons for those feelings? The obvious anti-Mormon biases of Philastrus Hurlbut and probably also the signers of the affidavits does not necessarily negate the validity of their statements. Those affidavits could still contain verifiable facts about Joseph and his family.

I will examine each of the major complaints against the Smiths in turn. Are the allegations fabricated and false, or do they contain true facts? If they are false they deserve no further attention and require no defense. If the allegations contain elements of truth, an explanation is required. We will learn that each true factual element is placed by individuals in a certain context depending upon their biases. We have determined that the complaints under consideration originated with people with strong anti-Mormon biases. Those biases determine the context into which the facts are placed.

“Money diggers.” We have carefully considered the Smith family’s experience with divination. See chapter , The Role of Divination (“Magic”) in Joseph Smith’s Early Life. We know that the Smiths, particularly Joseph, Sr. and Joseph Jr. were, in fact involved in divining and “money digging.” The claim in the affidavits is true. In chapter , we determine that contempt for treasure seeking (“money digging”) was universal among the genteel or upper class by the early nineteenth century as part of their wider criticism of the common folk for inadequate ambition, lackluster work discipline, and attachment to unsupported traditions. Many of those involved in signing Hurlbut’s affidavits could hardly be classed among the “gentility” of the area. It is therefore likely that the negative context into which they placed the “money diggers” was more the result of their anti-Mormon prejudices and less due to their socioeconomic biases.

Those believers in Mormonism were less inclined to speak negatively of the Joseph and his family whom they surely loved and respected. Surely they knew of the Smiths’ predilection for divination, but they regarded it as a part of Joseph’s role of prophet. I see Joseph’s involvement in divination as divinely orchestrated and part of his step-wise preparation and transition from a young and gifted treasure seeker to his becoming a true prophet of God.

Liar. This issue is simple. Joseph claimed to have visions and interactions with heavenly beings. He claimed to have been divinely enabled to find and translate an important ancient American record on gold plates. Was he lying, or was he telling the truth? It is a pure matter of belief. To adapt and coin an old aphorism—The “lie” is in the ear of the hearer.

The accusation of “liar,” when directed at Joseph Smith, Sr., seems usually related to his known belief in the Book of Mormon.

Lazy and indolent. After the Smiths moved away from their farm in 1830, some neighbors went on record with accusations that the Smiths had done little to improve the farm, had cleared only a small acreage (Arthur B. Deming, Naked Truths About Mormonism. Oakland, CA: Deming, 1888) and were “lazy,” and “indolent” ( E. D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 262). One neighbor claimed that the Smiths’ “great objective appeared to be to live without work” (Ibid., 260), while another said, “It was a mystery to their neighbors how [the Smiths] got their living” (Ibid., 249). Some even claimed that the Smiths had no legal claim to the property, but were merely “squatters” (Pomeroy Tucker, Origins, Rise and Progress of Mormonism. New York: D. Appleton, 1867, 12- 13. See also Thomas L. Cook, Palmyra and Vicinity, Palmyra, NY: Palmyra Courier- Journal, 1930, 219).

Of all the charges leveled against the Smiths this is the most ludicrous and obviously false. In fact, its inclusion among the other charges in the affidavits raises questions of the credibility of the person or persons making all of the charges.

Donald L Enders, in his article referenced above has provided abundant evidence of the fact that members of the Smith family were anything but lazy. Brother Enders writes:

In just ten years . . . the Smiths turned their heavily forested hundred acres into a productive farm “admired for its good order and industry” (Lucy Mack Smith, “Manuscript History of Her Son Joseph Smith, Jr.,” 1). They cleared 60 acres (thirty in the first year alone), cultivated approximately 35 acres, fenced the farm, planted a large apple orchard, and tapped 1,200 to 1,500 sugar maples, producing 1,000 pounds of sugar annually. They also built a log home, a frame home, a barn, a cooper’s shop, and other outbuildings. By fall 1823, the season of Alvin’s death, the Smiths “enjoyed their third harvest,” and within five years they had completed the clearing and fencing. The Smith reminiscences recall with pride that every able family member cooperated fully, showing the “the strictest kind of economy and labor” (Ibid., 49. See also J. W. Peterson, “William Smith Interview.” Deseret Evening News [20 January 1894] 28:11). . . .

Which version is correct [that of the Smiths or that of their antagonistic neighbors]? Land and tax records, farm account books, and correspondence, soil surveys, archaeological reports, historic building surveys, and interviews with agricultural historians and specialists of early nineteenth-century New York suggest that the Smith version is an honest one. These sources, which generally have not been part of the scholarly reconstructions of the origin period of Mormon history, yield data about the process of buying and developing land, farm labor, crops and markets, farm values, farm building construction, and agricultural knowledge and practices. Some of these sources specifically mention the Joseph Smith, Sr., family. Used in conjunction with traditional sources, these new sources permit a much clearer view about the Smiths’ work ethics and habits and of their accomplishments and failures as farm people.

I will here provide several notes of evidence taken, and largely quoted, from Brother Enders’ article:

On 2 November 1825, a “Squire” Stoddard signed a deed purchasing 150 acres immediately south of the Smith farm. The deed described Stoddard’s north boundary as “the south line of lands heretofore articled to Joseph and Alvin Smith” (Deed Book 44:219-21, italics mine). Articled means that the property was under contract and being paid for in yearly installments. Articling allowed possession but not title.

It seems probable that the Smiths looked for land that met specific criteria based not only on their practical experience in working the land, but also on established agricultural models. For example, Tench Coxe, Supervisor of the Revenue during the presidency of George Washington, published widely read recommendations about the agricultural settlement models during the years following the Revolution. Coxe suggested that emigrants to Western New York settle “on hundred acres of sugar maple land.” If these acres were developed to standards of “ordinary American improvement,” “two thirds” should be cleared for the “culture of grass and grain,” and “one third” should be left in “wood and timber.” The timber should include about 1,200 maple trees, which, when tapped, would “make one thousand pounds of weight of sugar” (Tench Coxe, A View of the United States of America. Dublin: P. Wogan, 1795, 69). The Smith family followed Coxe’s recommendation in almost exact detail. They obviously selected the land for their farm carefully and intelligently and were responsible and skilled farmers.

In 1820, when the Smiths purchased their hundred acres of heavily forested “undeveloped” land, it was valued at $700 (Assessment Rolls, Manchester Township, NY, 1830. Ontario County Archives, Canandaiqua, NY, 17). The 1830 tax records assessed its value at $1,300. The $600 increase represents considerable development by standards of that time. The Smiths’ 60 acres of cleared land, divided into 30-35 acres of cultivated fields, 10 to 15 acres of meadow, an orchard of 200 apple trees, and the woodlot and fencing, represented about $250 to $275 of the $600 increase. The Smith barn, which historical sources suggest was of common design, would have been valued at $150 to $175; the cooper’s shop, with “wood floor and loft” at $50, animal enclosures at $25, and the “unfinished” but inhabited frame home at $75 to $125 (Ibid.; See also John Mott, Director of Old Sturbridge Village Agricultural Program. Interviews. August 2, 1985 and January 20, 1992; see also William H. Siles, Director of Historical Research Genesee Country Village, Mumford, New York. Interview. May 2, 1985). The value of the buildings (about $325), when added to the value of the improved land ($250-$275), agrees very closely with the $600 increase in the value during the decade of the 1820s. This data must be viewed as verification of the accuracy of the Smiths’ memory of their improvements.

Consider what those developments represent. Based on horticultural studies, approximately 100 trees per acre grew in that area. To clear the 60 acres, the Smiths cut down about 6,000 trees (Dr. Dan Marion, Horticulturalist and Tree Pathologist, State College of New York. Interview. Canandiqua, NY. August 10, 1985 and January 24, 1992). A large percentage measured from four to six feet in diameter, and grew to heights of one hundred feet or more (J. W. Peterson, “William Smith Interview.” Deseret Evening News, January 20, 1984, 28:11). These figures help us to better appreciate William Smith’s statement: “If you will figure up how much work it should take to clear sixty acres of heavy timber land . . . trees you could not conveniently cut down, you can tell whether we were lazy or not (Ibid., 11).

The Smith farm had a perimeter of one and 2/3 miles. To fence that distance with a standard stone and singer fence required moving tons of stone from fields to pthe farm perimeter, then cutting and placing about 4,000 ten-foot rails. This does not include the labor and materials involved in fencing the barnyard, garden, pastures, and orchard, which, at a conservative estimate, required an additional 2,000 to 3,000 cut wooden rails (Neil Adams McNall. An Agricultural History of the Genesee Valley, 1790- 1860. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, 1952, 59, 84, 87, 91, 110-11, and 144). Clearly, this work alone—all of it separate from the actual labor of faming— represents a prodigious amount of concerted planning and labor.

The average size of Manchester Township’s 253 farms was 85 acres. . . . Sixtytwo of the 253 farms were larger than the Smith farm. They ranged from 105 to just over 300 acres. Twenty-two farms were the same size as the Smiths’. One hundred and sixty-eight were smaller and decreased in size from 98 to 10 Acres (Ibid.). The 1830 tax records for Manchester Township contain the evaluations of 176 farms of more than 50 acres in size. The average value per acre for those farms was $13. . . . The Smith farm was appraised at the average value per acre. Seventy-one farms were valued at a higher rate per acre than the Smith farm; 90 were valued below theirs; and 14 were valued at the same level. The farms rating higher than the Smiths’ ranged from $13.10 to $18 per acre, while those of lesser value were appraised at $12.90 to $8.

The Staffords, Stoddards, Chases, and Caprons were neighborhood residents who spoke against the Smiths in the affidavits. Only one of the ten families in this fourfamily group had property assessed more valuable than the Smiths’. Abraham Stafford’s 162 acres was valued at $12.96, William Stafford’s 100 acres at $12.50 per acre, Joshua Stafford’s 123 acres at $12.20 per acre, David Stafford’s 20 acres at $11 per acre, and John Stafford’s 60 acres at $10 per acre (Assessment Rolls 21-22). Only Edmund Chase of the Chase family group was still farming in Manchester in 1830. His 29-acre farm, bordering east on the Smith farm, was valued at $10 per acre (Ibid., 6). Russell Stoddard, the man who, according to Lucy Smith, cheated them out of their farm, lived a mile and a half south of the Smiths in a frame home with a barn, outbuildings, an orchard, a cedar grove, and a small sawmill. His 98-acre farm was considered “number one quality” and was valued at $16 per acre (Ibid., 21). Stoddard owned other farms, speculated in land, and built houses. After Alvin’s death, he contracted with the Smiths to compete their frame home enough to allow them to move into it. [For identification of Russell Stoddard as the carpenter who finished building the Smith’s frame home after Alvin’s death, see George Albert Smith Diary.] When fully “enclosed” after the Smiths moved away, it was comparable in size to Stoddard’s home (Research File. Joseph Smith, Sr. Family. Palmyra-Manchester, NY, 1816-30. Museum of Church History and Art, Salt Lake City, UT). The 150 acre farm of Squire Stoddard, Russell’s brother, lay immediately south of the Smith farm and was valued at $12 per acre. Joseph Capron’s land, a five-acre parcel situated within 200 yards of the Smith home, was valued at $10 per acre (Assessment Rolls, 5, 22).

It would seem that another reason the Smiths were accused of being “lazy and indolent” is that they had to work at day-labor to provide for themselves and pay for their farm. In that day, day-laboring implied low work. People who were employed for short term, often at menial tasks, were considered “lowfolk,” unrefined and socially undesirable. In addition to the divining—already mentioned above—they performed many types of labor including: digging and rocking up wells, mowing, coopering (making barrels), constructing cisterns, hunting and trapping, teaching school, providing domestic services, making chairs and baskets, harvesting, carpentry, digging for salt, constructing stone walls and fireplaces, flailing grain, cutting and selling cordwood, hauling, and making cider. They sold garden produce, washed clothes, painted oil-cloth coverings, butchered, dug coal, painted chairs, and made maple syrup and sugar (Research File. Joseph Smith, Sr. Family. Palmyra-Manchester, NY, 1816-30. Museum of Church History and Art, Salt Lake City, UT).

Joseph Jr.’s account suggests honest industry in the face of difficult conditions: “Being in indigent circumstances,” he says, “[we] were obliged to labour hard for the support of [our] large family and . . . it required exertions of all [family members] that were able to render any assistances” (Dean C. Jessee, ed. and comp. The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984, 4). The Smith men had a reputation as skilled and diligent workers. William Smith asserted that “whenever the neighbors wanted a good day’s work done they knew where they could get a good hand” (J. W. Peterson. “William Smith Interview.” Deseret Evening News [January 20, 1894] 28:11). Eight wells in three townships are attributed to the Smiths (Research File). They likely dug and rocked others, including some of the eleven wells dug on the farm of Lemuel Durfee, the kindly old Quaker who lived a little east of Martin Harris. Durfee also allowed them to labor in return for rent (or “mortgage” payments) on their farm after it passed into his ownership in December 1825. Father Joseph, Hyrum, and Joseph, Jr. were coopers. Coopering was an exacting trade, particularly if the barrel was designed to hold liquid. Dye tubs, barrels, and water and sap buckets were products of the Smiths’ cooper shop. They also repaired leaky barrels for neighbors at cidering time (Research File).

Sugaring was another labor-intensive work. William Smith recalls, “To gather the sap and make sugar and molasses from trees was no lazy job” (J. W. Peterson. “William Smith Interview.” Deseret Evening News [January 20, 1894] 28:11). Lucy said they produced an average of “one thousand pounds” of sugar a year (Ibid., 50). One neighbor reportedly said that the Smiths made 7,000 pounds of sugar one season and won a premium for their effort at the county fair (Fawn M. Brodie. No Man Knows My History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979, 10-11). Many people could make maple syrup, but it required considerable skill to make sugar and particularly good skill, dexterity, and commitment to make high quality sugar.

The Smiths’ labors indicate a strong work ethic. They were hardly a lazy or indolent family.

Intemperate. Barton Stafford was a few years younger than Joseph. In his personal affidavit he accuses the young Prophet of undignified conduct. Sometime in 1827 or afterward Joseph was allegedly intoxicated on cider, scuffled with a fellowworker, tore his shirt, and was escorted home by Emma. David Stafford, in his affidavit, also describes a personal experience, most probably the same as described by Barton.

David claimed that Joseph had “drinked a little too freely,” and while working together a dispute led to “hard words,” which led to a fight, and “he got the advantage of me in the scuffle.” A friend of the Staffords who also was involved in the scuffle, referring to himself and one of the Staffords, said, “We both entered a complaint against him, and he was fined for the breach of the peace.”

Joseph Smith’s only known response to a particular Hurlbut affidavit reports another version of the Stafford incident. It appears in Willard Richards’ memo entries of 1843 conversations of the Prophet: “While supper was preparing Joseph related an anecdote. While young, his father had a fine large watch dog, which bit off an ear from David Stafford’s hog, which Stafford had turned into the Smith corn field. Stafford shot the dog, and with six other fellows pitched upon him (Joseph, Jr.) unawares. And Joseph whipped the whole of them and escaped unhurt, which they swore to as recorded in Hurlburt or Howe’s book (Joseph Smith’s Journal, kept by Willard Richards, Jan. 1, 1843).

Since the above incident takes on such a different context in being told by Stafford or Smith, it is a striking reminder that controversial events cannot be settled by hearing only one side.

I find something a bit comical about the descriptions of this incident in the life of the young Prophet. He was surely a physically capable young man and well-able to take care of himself and his interests. I’m also convinced that any scuffles with other men were taken up in the interest of justice and fairness. If this is intemperance, then so be it!

Immoral. A common theme in Hurlbut’s affidavits is that Joseph and his family were dishonest and even thieves. One of the more absurd stories contained in the affidavit of William Stafford, the father of Barton and David, accuses the Smiths of being sheep stealers. In fairness, it may well be pointed out that William Stafford was a former sailor without education. This considerably heightens the possibility that Hurlbut composed Stafford’s affidavit and merely had him sign it (Pomeroy Tucker, The Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism. New York, 1867, 24, note). As noted previously, there is wording in William Stafford’s affidavit known to have been used before by Hurlbut. Two examples include:

1. In William Stafford’s affidavit we read: “They would say, also, that nearly all the hills in this part of New York, were thrown up by human hands. . . .” (William Stafford). This wording is similar to wording found in the affidavit of Roswell Nichols: “. . . for he had often said, that the hills in our neighborhood were nearly all erected by human hands.”

2. Stafford refers to the Smiths as “a worthless gang” which is a typical Hurlbut phrase.

3. The closing comment of the affidavit almost quotes the close of the general Palmyra affidavit: “No one apprehended any danger from a book, originating with individuals who had neither influence, honesty or honor.”

According to the William Stafford affidavit version of this the story:

The Smiths “devised a scheme” to cheat their neighbor out of “a large, fat, black wether” (a sheep). Stafford lived about a mile from the Smith residence. Joseph had discovered a valuable treasure which could be procured in only one way. A black sheep had to be taken to where the treasure was concealed and its throat cut. While bleeding, the animal had to be led around in a circle. After this action was taken the supposed wrath of an evil spirit would be appeased and the treasure could be obtained. Hearing the Smiths represent that the sacrifice of such a sheep must appease the spirit guarding a treasure, Stafford himself contributed the sheep “to gratify my curiosity.” Stafford later learned that the animal was killed, but the death did not “have the desired effect.” And the Smiths got away with the dead sheep. In the affidavit, Stafford is quoted as saying, “I believe, this is the only time they ever made money-digging a profitable business.”

Two authoritative accounts of this supposed episode have been told since its occurrence:

1. William Stafford died in 1863. At the time of his death, an acquaintance in Palmyra, Wallace Miner was twenty years old. Some time before Stafford’s death, Wallace Miner had a conversation with him regarding this episode. Some seventy years later, in 1932, M. Wilford Poulson took notes as Wallace Miner recalled this conversation. Poulson reported Miner’s statement: “I once asked Stafford if Smith did steal a sheep from him. He said no, not exactly. He said, he did miss a black sheep, but soon Joseph came and admitted he took it for sacrifice but he was willing to work for it. He made wooden sap buckets to fully pay for it” (M. Wilford Poulson, Notebook of 1932 interviews, Brigham Young University Archives). A more elaborate version of the Miner-Stafford conversation was reported in 1930 in the village history of Thomas Cook, which agrees that Joseph took the initiative to admit the taking and that he did the work to repay Stafford for the sheep (Thomas L. Cook, Palmyra and Vicinity, Palmyra, New York, 1930, 221-222).

Admittedly, this account is based on Miner’s recollections some seventy years after the conversation, but it does exonerate the Smiths of dishonest motivations in the episode. It is logical to conclude that the affidavit version of the episode was the idea of Hurlbut himself.

2. An earlier insight into William Stafford’s perceptions of the Smiths is available. It gives quite a different perception. Stafford’s second son was born the same year as Joseph Smith (1805), had the personal ambition to gain a good education for the day, and he became a physician. He practiced until about 1870 in the general area of Manchester and thereafter at Rochester. There Dr. John Stafford was interviewed by the Reorganized Latter Day Saint apostle William H. Kelley in 1881. The Kelley question-answer notes on this point read as follows:

What about that black sheep your father let them have?

“I have heard that story, but don’t think my father was there at the time they say Smith got the sheep. I don’t know anything about it.”

You were living at home at the time, and it seems you ought to know if they got a sheep, or stole one, from your father?

“They never stole one, I am sure; they may have got one sometime.”

Well, Doctor, you know pretty well whether that story is true or not, that Tucker tells. What do you think of it? [Pomeroy Tucker was a printer in Palmyra in the days of the prophet Joseph. He wrote an antagonistic book about the Church, Mormonism its Origin Rise and Progress, New York, 1867, 85.]

I don’t think it is true. I would have heard more about it, that is true. . . .” (William H. Kelley, “The Hill Cumorah . . . The Stories of Hulburt, Howe, Tucker, etc. from Late Interviews,” Saints’ Herald, volume 28, June 1, 1881, 167).

Since the well-informed John Stafford knew nothing of the sheep story, it is plain that William Stafford did not carry the attitude against the Smiths that his Hurlbut affidavit represents. If there was such an event of a borrowed sheep, it had nothing to do with dishonesty. In the Kelley interview, Dr. Stafford also insisted, “What Tucker said about them [the Smiths] was false, absolutely. My father, William Stafford, was never connected with them in any way,” a direct denial of the relationship and episode luridly described in the Hurlbut affidavit. Since Tucker’s reference to William Stafford was a reiteration of Hurlbut’s sheep story, John Stafford clearly was skeptical that his father was correctly represented in either Hurlbut-Howe or Tucker. The fact that William Stafford’s family doubted the authenticity of the Hurlbut account, together with Hurlbut’s evident editorializing talents, casts serious doubt upon the William Stafford affidavit as an historical document.

Another affidavit that accuses Joseph Smith of deliberate dishonesty is that of Peter Ingersoll. Little is known about him other than his appearance in the land records around the 1820’s as a property holder near Palmyra Village. His land was foreclosed to satisfy a judgment, and he apparently move from Palmyra after sale of his properties in 1836. In 1879 Abel Chase claimed, “He moved west years ago and died about two years ago,” (Statement of Abel D. Chase, May 2, 1879, Palmyra, New York, cit. Charles A. Shook, True Origin of the Book of Mormon, Cincinnati, 1914, 131). His life after leaving Palmyra is at present a mystery. So is his affidavit. In his affidavit, Ingersoll reports two accounts that Joseph confided in him. The first was that the Smiths milked Ingersoll’s missing cows and took the milk while they were supposedly using the divining rod to locate them. Ingersoll’s prize story concerns Joseph’s supposedly confiding in him that Joseph brought a quantity of wrapped sand into the Smith home. His family was curious about the nature of the package, and Joseph impulsively identified it as “the golden Bible.” The affidavit then goes on to report: “To my surprise, they were credulous enough to believe what I said. Accordingly, I told them that I had received a commandment to let no one see it, for, says I, no man can see it with the naked eye and live. However, I offered to take out the book and show it to them, but they refuse to see it, and left the room. ‘Now,’ said Jo, ‘I have got the damned fools fixed, and will carry out the fun.’”

It is difficult to even consider providing evidence against these absurd and laughable accounts of Joseph’s “confiding” in Ingersoll. The Ingersoll affidavit dates the episode at August 1827. But the Willard Chase affidavit maintains that by June 1827 Joseph Smith, Sr. had given Willard Chase full details of the “record on plates of gold,” and the family’s knowledge of it from “some years ago.”

The real issue in the Ingersoll statement is whether the damaging admissions reported from Joseph Smith debunk the Mormon Prophet or the Hurlbut-Ingersoll affidavit. Are we really to believe that any family consists of such a collection of gullibles as to be awed by the ridiculous brashness of the Ingersoll episode.

Were there good qualities to be found in the Smith family? Another anti- Mormon author was A. B. Deming. His collected statements about the Mormons were published in a newspaper entitled, Naked Truths About Mormonism. The banner lines over the only two issues to appear were, “Read and Laugh as You Never Laughed Before,” and “Startling Revelation.”

Even though Deming was devoted to condemning the Smiths and the Mormons, his gathered testimonies about the Smiths contained positive comments. His background is most interesting. He was the son of the courageous non-Mormon general, M. R. Deming, who stood for law and order in the civil chaos of western Illinois after the Prophet’s martyrdom. The younger Deming was deeply affected by his father’s early death. At the same time, he was neurotically resentful at the persecution his father’s Mormon sympathies caused him. Deming considered “all my misfortunes through life” to be “the direct or indirect result of his [young Deming’s father’s] friendship to the Mormons. . .” Although impelled to gather evidence against their faith, Deming was plagued by fears that the Mormons “might kill me, as I have several times been creditably informed they intend to do.” Yet he describes in detail his cordial reception in Salt Lake City by Mormon officials in 1882 and 1886. (All this personal data Deming volunteers on the first page of Naked Truths About Mormonism, vol. 1, No. 1, January 1888). Deming therefore appears as a pathetic, paranoid, and tortured soul.

Deming apparently did make contact with several who had known the Smiths in Palmyra-Manchester. It is notable that even in his one-sided and obviously biased reporting, he does not totally damn the Smiths as does the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits. For instance, Christopher Stafford was three years younger than Joseph Smith and despised him, though he admitted he really knew Joseph’s brother Samuel Harrison Smith better and considered him “a good, industrious boy” (Ibid., 1. Statement of C. M. Stafford, March 23, 1885, Auburn, Ohio). Caroline Rockwell Smith remembered her family’s conversion to Mormonism without bitterness, and the good deeds of Lucy Smith: “Jo Smith’s mother doctored many persons in Palmyra.” Caroline did not consider Joseph Smith an obvious fraud: “I hope sometime it will be known whether Mormonism is true or not” (Ibid., Statement of Mrs. M. C. R. Smith, March 25, 1885).

#The Positive Palmyra-Manchester Affidavits

In the Hurlbut-Howe book the anti-Mormon credo is clear and unqualified. Fiftyone Palmyrans “aquainted with the Smith family for a number of years” found them “destitute of. . . moral character.” Not a single good act or redeeming quality was displayed in that time by any one of them. “In short, not one of the family had the least claims to respectability.” This obviously biased and negative credo casts a shadow and raises the question of credibility across every affidavit. The book fails to include even one favorable recollection of the Mormon founders. This book contains diatribes, not objective evaluations. There is no attempt here to gather authentic information. The only intent is to discredit. The Hurlbut-Howe book is not history. It is mere propaganda. The book’s total lack of any affirmative family tradition contaminates the credibility of every negative story repeated. This general quality of Mormonism Unvailed as nonevidence highlights sharply the only two systematic attempts that were later made to gather recollections of non-Mormon associates of the Smiths in New York.

The Kelley interviews. The clearest proof that certain neighbors approved of the Smiths comes in the second systematic attempt to preserve Palmyra-Manchester recollections. In 1881 William H. and E. L. Kelley visited there with the express purpose of interviewing all who had firsthand knowledge of the Mormon founders, particularly Joseph Smith. The Kelleys were willing to “hear the worst, let it hurt whom it would.” William H. Kelley was then an RLDS apostle and competent leader. He took responsibility for writing up the detailed transcript of conversations, which concluded with a description of his method: “These facts and interviews are presented . . . just as they occurred—the good and bad, side by side; and allowing for a possible mistake, or error, arising from a misapprehension, or mistake in taking notes, it can be relied upon as the opinion and gossip had about the Smith family and others, among their old neighbors. (The Kelley Interviews contain William L. Kelley’s description of method at 161-162 and 168).

For a test of William H. Kelley’s note-taking ability, one should compare his report on David Whitmer the same year. The Kelley-Whitmer interview is detailed and minutely agrees with known writings and comments of and about the Book of Mormon witness. Consequently, the William H. Kelley transcripts from Palmyra-Manchester can be trusted as the most comprehensive investigations ever made there (For the Kelley- Whitmer interview, see Saints’ Herald, vol. 29, 1882, 66-69).

The printing of the Kelley Interviews sparked a “skirmish of affidavits,” a contest between the Kelley’s transcripts and those in Mormonism Unvailed. This skirmish is recorded in Charles A. Shook, True Origin of Mormon Polygamy (Cincinnati, 1914), 36- 38. The only statement that raises a significant issue on the accuracy of the Kelleys’ manuscript is that of John H. Gilbert, the printer’s assistant who provided all the punctuation for the Book of Mormon. Gilbert alleged a half-dozen mistakes in one interview, apparently in an attempt to discredit all of the Kelley interviews. Gilbert admits the truth of the main direction of conversation, and quarreled only with certain details. Some of Gilbert’s “misrepresentations” are trivial. Gilbert claims, in his final analysis, only one change necessary. On final analysis, Gilbert is a source of confirmation of the basic accuracy of the Kelley reports.

The Kelleys’ dogged insistence on personal knowledge disqualified several who merely repeated hearsay about the Smiths. One young man who signed the 1833 general Manchester affidavit for Philastrus Hurlbut was Abel Chase. Some fifty years later he confessed only a knowledge of “general character.” Careful questioning turned up nothing that he really knew about the Smiths. Since he was only thirteen years old when Joseph Smith left Palmyra for a permanent residence in the Harmony and Fayette areas, it is little wonder that Abel Chase could tell the Kelleys nothing definite.

Only two individuals out of nine interviewed by the Kelleys displayed any intimate knowledge. One was the same age as Joseph, John Stafford, the doctor already mentioned in connection with the affidavit attributed to his father William. The Kelleys’ questions are not always specific enough to determine which recollections of John Stafford are personal and which recall stories that circulated early. For instance, the only mention of Joseph’s drinking is the cider and torn shirt story told Hurlbut by John’s brother Barton. But it is not really clear that either of them saw what went on. Personal observation does come to bear, however, in John Stafford’s comments on Joseph’s physical aggression: I “never saw him fight; [but] have known him to scuffle”—evidently the distinction between brawling and playful wrestling. Regarding accusations of laziness, it appears that he had worked by Joseph’s side: “[Joseph] would do a fair day’s work if hired out to a man. . .” Questioned regarding Joseph’s education, Dr. Stafford replied (omitting intervening queries): Joe was quite illiterate. After they began to have school at their house, he improved greatly. They had school in their house, and studied the Bible. They did not have any teacher; they taught themselves.

His impression of Joseph as a person agrees with the Prophet’s known traits and autobiographical comments, and at the same time disagrees with much Palmyra folklore: “He was a real clever, jovial boy.”

Dr. Stafford did confirm the Smith family’s involvement with divination:

The Smiths, with others, were digging for money before Joe got the plates. My father had a stone, which some thought they could look through, and old Mrs. Smith came there after it one day, but never got it. Saw them digging one time for money (this was three or four years before the Book of Mormon was found), the Smiths and others. The old man and Hyrum were there, I think, but Joseph was not there.

In the Kelley Interviews, the person with the most first-hand knowledge was also the most favorable to the Smith reputation. This was Orlando Saunders, an “old settler” in Palmyra. Anti-Mormon writers of the late nineteenth century preferred to quote his younger brother Lorenzo, who moved to Michigan about 1854 and died there in 1888. But Lorenzo was six years younger than Joseph Smith, whereas Orlando Saunders was two years older than Joseph.

In two preserved statements, Lorenzo Saunders says virtually nothing firsthand about Joseph Smith. After considerable correspondence virtually requesting him to remember seeing Sidney Rigdon at the Smiths before 1830 (so they could claim Rigdon’s participation in creating the Book of Mormon), Lorenzo gave some vague recollections claiming to do so. Lorenzo considered Joseph an imposter, and also claimed that Lorenzo’s mother did too (Letter of Lorenzo Saunders to Thomas Gregg, January 28, 1885, cit. Shook, True Origin of the Book of Mormon, 134-135.)

Orlando is also the more interesting in that he remained all his life on the family farm (within a mile of the Smith farm) and was aware of the various anti-Mormon spokesmen for Palmyra-Manchester until his death in 1889. It is clear that he disagreed with his brother, and on specific grounds of experience.

Fortunately, Orlando Saunders was also interviewed by a non-Mormon author of ability, Frederic G. Mather, a short time before the Kelleys’ report. Mather was a journalist and not a historian. Hence his comments are brief and paraphrased. However the two interviews (Mather’s and the Kelleys’) are remarkably similar. Mather reports Saunders as saying “that the Smith family worked for his father and for himself,” (Frederic G. Mather, “The Early Days of Mormonism,” Lippincott’s Magazine, vol. 26. 1880, 198). This contact with the Smith men was not cursory, according to the Kelley interview: “They have all worked for me many a day.” Mather also reports specific business dealing, the purchase of a horse and bridle, the latter being paid for by “a Bible” (Ibid., 205).

There is one apparent contradiction in the two interviews, which must be resolved in favor of the Kelleys. After quoting Saunders on Joseph Smith, Mather follows, “By nature he was peaceably disposed, but when he had taken too much liquor he was inclined to fight, with or without provocation.” The weakness of this statement is that Mather’s article is a synthesis of opinions about Joseph Smith in Mather’s own words. The Kelleys asked particularly about this subject, and they quote Saunders directly: “Everybody drank a little in those days, and the Smiths with the rest; they never got drunk to my knowledge.”

The only criticisms reported by either Mather or the Kelleys concerned the Smiths’ finances. Mather reported that the Smiths “could save no money,” and this is mirrored precisely in the Kelley record: “I did not consider them good managers about business, but they were poor people; the old man had a large family.”

In Mormonism Unvailed, the Smiths did nothing but exploit their neighbors, but Orlando Saunders’ experience was opposite: “They were the best family in the neighborhood in case of sickness; one was at my house nearly all the time when my father died.” Neither did he consider them poor credit risks: “I always thought them honest. They were owing me some money when they left here; that is, the old man and Hyrum did, and Martin Harris. One of them came back in about a year and paid me.

The Kelleys found Saunders “a fair type of the intelligent New York farmer,” and he was characteristically agnostic in his view of the Book of Mormon. He had seen the book, “but never read it” nor did he “care anything about it.” On the practical issue of the Smith reliability, he was solidly favorable. Mather reported, “He gives them the credit of being good workers. . . . “

The Kelleys quoted his words: “They were very good people. Young Joe (as we called him then), has worked for me, and he was a good worker; they all were.” Evidently referring to the youthful strength of the Prophet, Saunders told Mather “that Joseph Jr., was ‘a greeny,’ both large and strong.” Pressed by the Kelleys on how well he knew Joseph Smith, Orlando Saunders reiterated: “Oh! Just as well as one could very well; he has worked for me many a time, and been about my place a great deal. He stopped with me many a time, when through here, after they went west to Kirtland; he was always a gentleman when about my place.”

The Smith family lived on the line between Palmyra and Manchester Townships. The 1830 census of these townships contains about 2,000 males old enough to know the Smiths in these two localities. From that possible number, Hurlbut procured the signatures of seventy-five individuals who claimed firsthand experience with Joseph Smith. At best, Hurlbut selected one-half of one percent of the males who potentially knew anything about the Smiths. In his book, Howe presented these as representative of the general population of the Palmyra-Manchester area.

The full community of friends and foes is re-created in Lucy Smith’s history, where a positive sample appears in the 1825 letter of recommendation to the land agent when the Smith purchase contract was endangered through misrepresentation. Their respected physician was contacted, and Dr. Gain Robinson “wrote the character of my family, our industry . . . with many commendations calculated to beget confidence in us as to business transactions.” In an hour this testimonial had 60 signatures “in the village.” Oliver Cowdery taught school in the Smith neighborhood and is generally favorably remembered in later statements of the families of his district. On publication of the Hurlbut affidavits, he said of Joseph, “I have been told by those for whom he has labored, that he was a young man of truth and industrious habits” (Oliver Cowdery to W. W. Phelps, Letter 8, Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate. October 1835: 200).

#Non-Mormon Biographies of Joseph Smith

Most major non-Mormon biographies—published in both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—treating Joseph Smith’s New York life and reputation are historically sub-standard. They mostly fall into an unsophisticated acceptance of Hurlbut’s contrived and slanted statements, without apparent awareness of non- Mormon sources favorable to the Smiths from Palmyra-Manchester.

Anti-Mormon literature is overcrowded with non-witnesses. One reason why more accurate, first-hand, non-Mormon data on Joseph Smith and his family are not available is because the Smiths lived quite sequestered from Palmyra residents. They lived away from any village by two miles or more. Adding to the problem of a villager really coming to know the young prophet, is the fact that within a few months of obtaining the ancient plates, he moved to other neighborhoods (Harmony, Pennsylvania and Fayette, New York). Thereafter he visited the Palmyra-Manchester area only occasionally, particularly during the publication of the Book of Mormon. Even John Gilbert, chief compositor for the Book of Mormon stated in interviews that he saw Joseph Smith only once or twice, even though Gilbert was in public life in Palmyra from 1824 through the Mormon Exodus of 1831. Numerous interviews with Gilbert establish that he dealt mostly with Hyrum Smith and Martin Harris during the Book of Mormon production. Gilbert’s letter to James T. Cobb, March 16, 1879, Palmyra, New York is clear: “Hyrum Smith was the only one of the family I had any acquaintance with, and that very slight.” Albert Chandler, later a prominent editor in Michigan, worked as a bookbinder’s apprentice on the Book of Mormon in 1829-30. Yet he knew Joseph Smith, Jr. “but slightly.” “What I know of him was from hearsay, principally from Martin Harris, who believed fully in him” (Letter of Albert Chandler to William Alexander Linn, December 22, 1898, Coldwater, Mich., cit. William Alexander Linn, Story of the Mormons. New York, 1902, 48-49). Some of the fifty-one signers of the general Palmyra condemnation probably had no more than this degree of knowledge of the Smiths.

There are even greater problems in taking Palmyra-Manchester statements as definitive on the origin of the Book of Mormon. As Chandler recalled the Palmyra of 1829-30, everyone scoffed at Martin Harris, but no one really knew the events and personalities behind the new religion: “The absolute secrecy of the whole inception and publication of the Mormon Bible stopped positive knowledge. We only knew what Joseph Smith would permit Martin Harris to publish, in reference to the whole thing (Chandler to Linn in Story of the Mormons, 48-49). In the study of Joseph Smith’s character, it is the distant non-observer of Palmyra-Manchester who tends to be hostile.

The better informed the witness, the more affirmative his views. This tendency or rule requires a careful look at the close-knit Smith family, since they had the most intimate knowledge of young Joseph Smith.

#The Views of Joseph’s Own Family

The Prophet answered the affadavits in Mormonism Unvailed by admitting human weaknesses but denying gross personal transgression and insisting, “I have not. . . been guilty of wronging or injuring any man or society of men” (Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, vol. 1, December, 1834, 40). The unaffected but detailed history of Lucy Smith throws far more light on the family’s early history than all of the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits, but in her artless simplicity she does not respond specifically to the charge of the early affidavits. This is actually an evidential strength. But the last surviving brother of the Prophet met these issues head on.

William Smith was too young to remember the earliest days at Palmyra- Manchester, but his recollections are very specific from about 1823. An individualist who was notably not an organization man, he spent his later years in the obscurity of an Iowa farm. He is known for an occasional speech or interview, but his considered answer to Hurlbut-Howe lay in a manuscript written by William found among the papers of a friend until forwarded to the LDS Church about 1925. In sending Smith’s manuscript to the Church, William’s friend Charles Knecht described his own interest in the Smith family, which prompted him to loan William a copy of Chambers’ Miscellany, a book containing a summary of the Hurlbut affidavits. William read the summary and “wanted to reply to it, and wanted me to see it [Williams reply to the affidavits] published. . . .” (Letter of Charles Knecht, 1925, Yakima, Washington).

The manuscript is definitely in William Smith’s handwriting and evidently dates from about 1875. This date is confirmed by the last statement in the manuscript: “My father and mother are both dead some 20 years. . . .” Lucy died in May of 1855.

William’s manuscript reveals early on (in the third sentence) his frustration at historians who “have no greater foundation for facts to build upon than public rumor. . . .” To the charge that his brother Joseph was “suspected of sheep stealing,” William replied vigorously that “at no period of his life” was he guilty, “nor was he ever suspected of committing such an offense” (page 3 of a typescript of the William Smith manuscript). The value of the younger brother’s comments go beyond specific denials to details of their home life. The father (absurdly characterized by a noted biographer as possessing “irreligion and cynicism”) insisted quietly on hymns and “prayers both night and morning.” The tone of “strict piety” in the home is described: “My parents, father and mother, poured out their souls to God, the donor of all blessings, to keep and guard their children, and keep them from sin and from all evil works” (typescript, 18).

The Chambers’ summary of Hurlbut goes to the essential issues of this paper: “The reputation of the family (according to the testimony of neighbors) was of the worst kind. We are told that they avoided honest labour, were intemperate and untruthful, addicted to sheep stealing, digging for hidden treasures, etc. . .” This quotation corresponds exactly in the Smith manuscript (typescript, 6).

Responding specifically to this quoted statement, William Smith’s answer was brief but direct in denial and explanation of the origin of these charges:

My statement on this subject is that the charges are false. My father’s family were a peaceable, quiet, and a church going people—and nothing of these calumnies was ever heard of, not until after my brother Joseph Smith came out with his profession as a prophet. . . (typescript, 6).

William Smith, supported by informed non-Mormon testimony, gives specific recollections of daily life designed to reveal Hurlbut’s charges as malicious defamation:

The improvements made on this farm was first commenced by building a log house at no small expense, and at a later date a frame house at a cost of several hundred dollars. After noticing these facts we crave the reader of this article to judge whether there was much time for indolence or for indulgence in immoral or intemperate habits. Here I wish to remark that I never knew my father Joseph Smith to be intoxicated or the worse for liquor, nor was my brother Joseph Smith in the habit of drinking spirituous liquors. Neither did my father’s family spend their time, or any portion of their time, in idle habits. Such was the prevailing circumstances of the family, connected with the want of money and the scarcity of provisions, that necessity made an imperative demand upon every energy, nerve, or member of the family for both economy and labor, which this demand had to be met with the strictest kind of industry, and no persons speaking the truth can say to the contrary (typescript, 17-18).