The Zelph Story

#The Episode

In June, 1834, an incident occurred which has probably aroused more interest and controversy in the Church than is warranted. I am grateful to Kenneth W. Godfrey for his thorough investigation of historical documents that relate to this episode. He reported his findings in “The Zelph Story,” BYU Studies, volume 29, number 2, spring 1989, 31-49 (hereafter Godfrey).

On June 2 or 3 a vanguard party of Zion’s Camp dug up a few bones from a burial mound in western Illinois. The site is located about one mile south of modern Valley City in Pike County near the Illinois River. The Illinois River nearly parallels the Mississippi River and runs near the western Illinois border. The unearthed remains included a broken femur (thigh bone), some other bones, and an arrowhead. They were found buried approximately one foot below the earth’s surface.

It is well-documented that on the following day Joseph made statements about this deceased man and his historical setting. Joseph said his name had been Zelph, and he was a “white Lamanite” warrior who had died in battle while fighting under a leader named Onandagus.

It is not entirely clear when this individual might have lived and died. According to historian Stanley B. Kimball, this particular burial mound is a “typical prehistoric Middle Woodland mortuary complex of the Hopewell culture” (Stanley B. Kimball, Heber C. Kimball, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1981, 31. See also James L. Bradley, “The Naples-Russell Mound,” unpublished research paper, LDS Church Archives). The “Middle Woodland” period is from AD 1 to AD 500. It is, of course, also possible that the Zelph burial site, which was near the surface at the mound’s top, dated considerably later than the period of mound construction. “Hopewell culture” is a name given to peoples living on a river and depending on the river for commerce and trade.

It is interesting that Onandagus is the name of a tribe of Indians that belonged to the five-nation confederacy of the Iroquois who occupied upper New York state.

#Explaining the Episode

This incident has become somewhat problematic. It has caused some confusion and discomfort among present-day students of the Book of Mormon. A major reason is that most of us have come to accept a specific and limited Central American setting as the only plausible location for the Book of Mormon lands. And while a few remnants of Book of Mormon peoples might eventually have wandered into North America, we have given up trying to attribute Hebrew or Book of Mormon origins to most all of the native American Indians. It is unlikely that a direct descendant of the Lamanite/Nephites in the

Book of Mormon would turn up buried in western Illinois—in the Northeastern United States.

We are left with several questions. For example, what did Joseph mean by the phrase “white Lamanite”? Did he intend to say that Zelph was one of the Book of Mormon Lamanites? Or, was he a descendant of the Book of Mormon Lamanites? Why a “white” Lamanite? In what battle was he killed? Was it that great final battle of the Nephites and Lamanites? Must this episode be interpreted to imply that western Illinois is a part of the Book of Mormon’s “land northward”? Before attempting to answer these questions, let us consider some background information that bears importantly on this episode and the questions it raises.

#Whole-Hemisphere/One People Theory

It would seem that there exists a universal tendency for members of the Church who have their first experience with the Book of Mormon to make two fundamental intuitive assumptions:

1. The first is that the Book of Mormon story involved the whole of the western hemisphere. The book’s “land northward” was North America. The “land southward” was South America. And Central America was the narrow neck of land between the two.

2. The second assumption is that in the Book of Mormon we read the foundational history of the ancestry of the peoples of the entire western hemisphere. This implies that when Lehi and Ishmael and their families disembarked somewhere on the western coast of the western hemisphere, they discovered a unspoiled land devoid of major populations or cultures. The people of the Book of Mormon story then proceeded to populate the western hemisphere.

The early members of the Church did not escape these assumptions, and even Joseph Smith seemed to accept them. It was only natural and expected that members of the early Church, including Joseph, refer to the Native American Indians as “Lamanites.” They assumed that most, if not all, American Indians could trace their origins to the Book of Mormon peoples.

Today, serious students of the Book of Mormon have come to realize that the whole-hemisphere/one-people theory is seriously flawed. The Lehites who sailed across the Pacific Ocean and disembarked on the western coast of the Americas did not encounter a pristine and uninhabited land. Rather, they settled as a small group among a large established native population. They remained a relatively small group living among many other peoples. They did not, however, remain isolated from the indigenous population. Evidence suggests that they intermarried with some of the natives who became part of the Nephite/Lamanite culture. This greatly and rapidly expanded their numbers. Yet, relatively they remained a small culture in a vast and populated land.

Further, we have learned that the text of the Book of Mormon provides incontrovertible evidence that the Book of Mormon lands were limited in size. A total area of some two hundred by seven hundred miles is most compatible with geographic data implicit in the text.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks tells of his own transition from the whole-hemisphere/onepeople theory to a more realistic formulation. He also points out why anti-Mormons are so disappointed that the whole-hemisphere/one-people theory is no longer applicable:

I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.

In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument [about its historical accuracy] changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise. One does not prevail on that proposition by proving that a particular . . . culture represents migrations from [eastern] Asia. The opponents of historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas (“The Historicity of the Book of Mormon,” in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson, Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2001, 238–39).

#The Revelations of Joseph Smith

It is apparent that much of the revelation the prophet Joseph received was of the direct—”writing-on-the-wall”—type. That is, Joseph, had the blessing of being visited by and conversing face to face with heavenly beings. Examples include his First Vision experience and Moroni’s ministering to him repeatedly for five consecutive years prior to Joseph’s taking possession of the Book of Mormon plates. It is also apparent that as the Lord’s Church and kingdom was being established, each time Joseph took a question to the Lord in prayer, it was answered directly and recorded in a manner somewhat akin to heavenly dictation.

But it is evident also that revelation in some other matters came to him in the same way it comes to all of us—that is incrementally and over time. When the Lord, through the ministrations of his Spirit, reveals to us a new concept, that concept must become logical and comprehensible to us according to our prior platform of knowledge. We cannot receive it unless and until it makes sense—only when it fits into what we already know. Our baseline understandings must evolve to enable the new concept to become a logical addition. It seems clear that Joseph’s revealed understandings of Book of Mormon geography and the population dynamics of the book fit into this latter category.

At the time of the Zelph experience in 1834, Joseph maintained the wholehemisphere/one-people view of the origins of the Native Americans. It was the same as held by all other members of the Church. It seems likely, at the time, he did not consider either the geography or the population questions to be important, unresolved issues. He regarded these matters as settled, even though we now know they weren’t. His attentions were necessarily directed elsewhere. He was understandably taken up by the myriad responsibilities of his office. Book of Mormon geography and population dynamics were not likely issues he labored over or took before the Lord in prayer. It would seem he had neither the time nor the interest to seek revelation from the Lord on these matters.

But Joseph was the Lord’s prophet. The Lord continued to communicate with him, and he did so in a manner Joseph would understand. In the Doctrine Covenants it became pertinent and necessary that the Lord provide Joseph with revelation concerning the American Indians. For example, in section 28 (received in 1830), the Lord, through Joseph, commanded Oliver Cowdery to lead a missionary expedition to the Indians and build up the Church among them. The recorded counsel from the Lord refers to the Indians as “Lamanites.” Is this correct, or is it an error? Are these Indians really Lamanites? Are they direct Book of Mormon descendants? Joseph felt they were and referred to them as such in verses 8-9 and 14 of that section. These verses, of course, are scripture, and according to the nature of scripture, they are worded in a manner approved by the Lord. Some have felt that this usage meant that the Lord was providing us a second definition of Lamanites. That is, he was suggesting that there were Lamanites in the Book of Mormon and another group of “Lamanites” all over North America. It seems more likely that the Lord was simply tolerating and accommodating Joseph’s misunderstanding of the origin of the Native Americans who lived in North America at the time. The Lord wanted the gospel preached to the neighboring Native Americans, and if Joseph felt it was appropriate to label them as Lamanites, then that was acceptable to the Lord. Thus, we must conclude that the Lord himself provided, or at least accepted the title of Lamanites for the native American Indians. This does not necessarily imply that they had anything to do with the literal descendants of the Book of Mormon peoples. For other examples of Joseph’s (and the Lord’s) referring to the Indians as Lamanites, see D&C 30:6 and 32:2—revealed in 1830—and D&C 54:8— revealed in 1831.

By 1842 there is evidence Joseph had begun to change his ideas. Evidently he had begun to believe that most of the Nephite/Lamanite history had taken place in Central America. In 1842 a best-selling book by explorer John Lloyd Stephens (Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1841) was read by Joseph Smith and associates in Nauvoo. Their reading prompted an extensive review of the book in the Nauvoo newspaper, the Times and Seasons. No author is listed for this review, but Joseph Smith was editor in chief, and John Taylor was managing editor.

Stephens’s was the first book in English reporting great ruins in Central America. It strongly impressed the newspaper writer (whoever he was), for on September 15th the Times and Seasons reported, “We have to state about the Nephites that . . . they lived about the narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central America, with all the cities that can be found” (“Extract,” Times and Seasons, September 15, 1842, 914). Stephens’s new information obviously was causing the leadership in Nauvoo to begin to think of Nephite geography in a new way.

Two weeks later those who produced the newspaper continued to exult in their study of what was for them “the latest research”: “We have [just] found another important fact relating to the truth of the Book of Mormon. . . . The city of Zarahemla . . . stood upon this land,” that is, Central America or Guatemala, which “once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south” (“Zarahemla,” Times and Seasons, October 1, 1842, 927). Since Zarahemla was located in the land southward, their new insight put the land southward to the north of Panama. The new thinking inferred that South America was of little or no significance for Book of Mormon geography. The September 15, 1842 Times and Seasons article also suggested that the “wonderful ruins of Palenque” in Chiapas, Mexico, “are among the mighty works of the Nephites,” and that they compared favorably with the temple of Nephi. Since the Book of Mormon also places the land of Nephi and its temple in the land southward, this 1842 model further confirms the non-applicability of South America to the Book of Mormon story.

The further inference in this new thinking was that an area much smaller than the entire hemisphere could satisfactorily serve as the scene of the chief events in the Nephite record. In the long run, however, the Stephens-stimulated view of Central America as the Book or Mormon heartland did not prevail among the saints generally. The new implications were apparently overwhelmed by the inertia of the old beliefs in a whole-hemisphere geography.

Orson Pratt, who was separated from the Church during 1842 when the new thought on this topic was stirring, seems to have continued to believe in the original geographical theory (see, for example, Journal of Discourses, 12:340–42; 14:324–30, 333). His views along those lines are reflected in the geographical footnotes he added to the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon. His opinions led several generations of readers of the scripture to assume with him that only the Nephites and Lamanites of Mormon’s account occupied the Americas—from the Arctic to the Antarctic—at least during Book of Mormon times.

By the beginning of the 20th century, it is likely that not more than a handful of readers of Mormon’s book questioned the interpretation that Lehi landed in Chile, that Panama was the narrow neck, and that the final battle of the Nephites took place in New York. In 1856 George Q. Cannon, who in Nauvoo had worked in the Times and Seasons office with his uncle John Taylor and was familiar with Stephens’ works, questioned the usual whole-hemisphere view of Book of Mormon geography (George Q. Cannon, “Buried Cities of the West,” Western Standard, 15 October 1856; reprinted in Millennial Star, 10 January 1857, 18). In 1876 another writer, after learning of parallels between native Mesoamerican traditions and the Book of Mormon, shifted his earlier support for Orson Pratt’s model. “Is it not possible,” he asked in light of this new information, “that the Rio Usumasinta, ‘flowing north into the sea,’ may be the ancient river Sidon? Those remarkable and world-famous ruins known under the name Palenque may yet be proven to be the remains of that ‘great city and religious center’ of the aboriginals, called Zarahemla” (G. M. Ottinger, “Votan, the Culture Hero of the Mayas,” Juvenile Instructor 14/5, 1 Mar. 1879: 58). The implications of placing Zarahemla either in Guatemala or in southern Mexico would obviously shift the land Bountiful to a more northerly location, leaving the Isthmus of Tehuantepec as the only viable candidate for the narrow neck of land. In contrast, Pratt’s popular model puts the River Sidon, Zarahemla, and Bountiful in the northern regions of South America between Colombia and Panama (see Journal of Discourses, 14:324–33).

The modern theory of Book of Mormon geography and population dynamics seemed to mature in 1985 with the publishing of John L. Sorenson’s book An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Deseret Book: Salt Lake City, Utah, and Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies: Provo, Utah). The limited geography/limited population theory was now on solid scholastic footing.

It is clear that church members have held to at least two drastically different models of Book of Mormon geography. This suggests that such things were not considered to have been settled by revelation. Anecdotal evidence (there are no systematic data) suggests that even now, after church members have been reading the Book of Mormon for a century and three-quarters, a large number of readers continue to assume the whole-hemisphere view of Book of Mormon geography. Moreover, some unbelievers insist in their anti–Book of Mormon propaganda that this view always was and still is completely orthodox. If that were true, of course, their cause of damaging the Book of Mormon authenticity would much simpler (see, for example, B. H. Roberts, Studies in the Book of Mormon, ed. Brigham Madsen, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985; Dan Vogel, Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon: Religious Solutions from Columbus to Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986; Brent Lee

Metcalfe, “Apologetic and Critical Assumptions about Book of Mormon Historicity,” Dialogue 26/3, fall 1993: 154–84; “Editors’ Introduction,” in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002, vii–xvii; and Thomas W. Murphy, “Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics,” in American Apocrypha, 47–77. For one response to the anti-Mormons, see William J. Hamblin, “An Apologist for the Critics: Brent Lee Metcalfe’s Assumptions and Methodologies,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1, 1994: 434–523).

Actually the proportion of saints who still accept the antiquated geography is irrelevant in light of the decisive information in the Book of Mormon. The text itself gives an unmistakable picture of a restricted territory. And as President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them” (Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith, comp. Bruce R.McConkie, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1956, 3:203–4).

#What Exactly Did Joseph Smith Say About the Unearthed Remains?

Let us now examine the original historical documents that bear on this episode. Again, I am grateful to Brother Kenneth W. Godfrey and his paper cited above. Several members of Zion’s Camp recorded, in their journals or other subsequent writings, records about the finding of Zelph’s bones and what Joseph said about them. We will learn that these records are not all entirely consistent. Together they leave a number of the details in doubt.

There are accounts written or dictated by six members of the expedition. Rather than recount each of these in detail, I will mention each author and his notable contributions to the story. I will concentrate particularly on details in each account that differ from the “standard” story recounted above in the section titled “The Episode.”

1. Reuben McBride. This account is shorter and less detailed than the others, but it may have been the first one recorded, possibly having been written on the day the find occurred, although in no case are we completely sure when the information was put down in writing. McBride’s account (Reuben McBride, Diary, 3 June 1834, LDS Church Archives) includes the following points:

• The remains were unearthed by the prophet Joseph.

• Zelph served as a great warrior under the “Prophet Omandagus” (note spelling). Zelph was killed in battle.

• The arrowhead was found in his ribs and was the mechanism of his death. • Zelph was a “man of God” who was “known from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains.”

• The “curse was taken off him.” Thus, he was a “white Lamanite.” This information seems to have been added to McBride’s diary some time after his original recording.

2. Moses Martin. Another member of Zion’s Camp, twenty-two-year-old Moses Martin, also kept a diary of his experiences while traveling through Pike County (Moses Martin, Diary, LDS Church Archives). His report includes the following:

• “We discovered a large quantity of large mounds.”

“Being filed with curiosity we excavated the top of one [some] 2 feet when we •

came to the bones of an extraordinary large person or human being, the thigh bones being 2 inches longer from one Socket to the other than of the Prophet who is upwards of 6 feet high which would have constituted some 8 or 9 feet high.”

• “In the trunk of this skeleton near the vitals we found a large stone arrow which I suppose brought him to his end.”

“Soon after this Joseph had a vision and the Lord showed him that this man •

was once a mighty Prophet and many other things concerning his people.”

• “We found those mounds to be deposits for the dead which had fallen no doubt in some great Battles.”

• “In addition to this we found many large fortifications which [also] denotes civilization and an innumerable population which has fallen by wars and commotion, and the banks of this beautiful river became the deposit of many hundred thousands whose graves and fortifications are overgrown with the sturdy oak 4 feet in diameter.”

It appears Moses Martin was present when the digging occurred, since he reports vividly the party’s curiosity that led them to excavate and find the bones. It seems likely that this diary entry was made while the party was still in Pike County, shortly after the event. It is interesting to note that while Moses is impressed with the size of the skeleton and with Joseph’s vision of the unnamed prophet, he says nothing about his being killed in battle, about his ancestry, his name, his being a white Lamanite, or his having served under a prophet chief named Omandagus or Onandagus. Instead, in the Martin account, the deceased man was “a mighty prophet.” No details are given about who did the excavating.

3. Wilford Woodruff. Five years later Brother Woodruff would be called to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He recorded in his journal the following points (Wilford Woodruff, Diary, LDS Church Archives. This entry is on a page headed “May 8th, 1834.” See also Scott Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’ s Journal, 9 vols., Midvale, Utah: Signature Books, 1983, 1:10):

• “While on our travels we visited many of the mounds which were flung up by the ancient inhabitants of this continent, probably by the Nephites & Lamanites.”

“The curse was taken from him [Zelph] or at least in part.”

•

• “He was killed in battle with an arrow, the arrow was found among his ribs, one of his thigh bones was broken, this was done by a stone flung from a sling in battle years before his death.”

• “Some of his bones were brought into the camp and the thigh bone which was broken was put into my wagon, and I carried it to Missouri.”

• “Zelph was a large thick set man and a man of God, he was a warrior under the great prophet that was known from the hill Cumorah to the Rocky mountains.”

The above knowledge Joseph received in a vision.

•

Sometime later (date unknown), Woodruff added interlineally in the same paragraph the following information:

“Three persons dug into the mound & found a body.”

•

• “Elder Milton Holmes took the arrow out of the back bones that killed Zelph & brought it with some of the bones into the camp.”

“I visited the same mound with Jesse J. Smith. Who the other persons were •

that dug into the mound & found the body I am undecided.”

Apparently at the same time, he also added the word “Onandagus” after the words “great prophet,” and inserted the words “on East sea” after “Cumorah.”

Woodruff writes that the Prophet “Onandagus” was known “from the hill Cumorah on the East sea to the Rocky mountains.” This is the earliest source for this geographical data. In Reuben McBride’s account it is Zelph who was widely known. Woodruff also reports that the information about the skeleton came through a vision given to the prophet Joseph. Two other accounts of this incident were later penned by Woodruff, but their wording is essentially identical to the one above except for omitting the information added interlineally.

Sometime after arriving in the Salt Lake Valley, probably during the 1850s, Wilford Woodruff began writing his autobiography. An examination of the manuscript in his own hand, now in the Church Archives, reveals that when he came to that part of his life when the bones of Zelph were found he added information not found in his journal account. Woodruff’s autobiographical account contains the following additional notable features (Undated autobiography of Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff Collection, LDS Church Archives. Wilford Woodruff wrote this autobiography in his own hand through page 50, or through the November 25, 1835 period of his life. After that, probably William Appleby or Robert Lang wrote as he dictated. Woodruff began writing the events in his life after the arrival of the saints in the Salt Lake Valley):

“During our travels we visited many mounds thrown up by the Ancient •

inhabitants of Nephites and Lamanites, this morning we went unto a high mound near the river Joseph & many of the Brethren went up this mound was very high from the top of it—we could overlook the tops of the trees as far as our vision could extend and the scenery was truly delightful.”

• “On the top of the mound were stones which presented the Appearance of three Alters having been erected one above the other according to the Ancient order of things & human bones were strun [strewn] upon the ground. We had taken a shovel along with us[.] Brother Joseph wished us to dig into the mound we dug into it about one foot & came upon the skeleton of a man almost entire and an Arrow was found sticking in his back bone. Elder Milton Holmes picked it out & brought it into camp with one of his leg bones which had been brocken[.]”

“He [Milton Holmes] put the leg bones in my waggon & I carried it to Clay •

County Missouri.”

• “Brother Joseph feeling anxious to learn something Governing the man, prayed to the Lord & the Lord gave him a vision in open day while lying in his waggon, this mound & his history was placed before him. His name was Zelph, He was a white Lamanite the curse had been taken off from him because of his faith and righteousness[.] He had embraced the gospel, he was a short stout thick set man, He had been a great warrior, Had joined the Nephites & fought for them under the direction of the great Onandagus who held sway & command over the Armies of the Nephites from the Hill Cumorah & Eastern sea to the rocky mountains though the Book of Mormon does not speak of him.”

• “He [Zelph] was a great warrior leader & great prophet Zelph had his thigh bone brocken from the sling of a stone while in battle in the yr of his youth He was killed with the Arrow sticking in his back bone the vision of the great prophet at the time that Zelph was killed was opened to the prophet Joseph & there [word unclear] were heaped upon the earth & that great Mound of near 300 Feet High placed over them. I felt impressed to bury Zelph’s thigh bone in Temple Block at Jackson County Missouri but I did not have an opportunity and I brought it to Clay County near the house owned by Colonel Arthur & occupied by Lyman Wight.”

At the end of the account, written in a different hand and probably at a later date, are the words, “The arrow head is now in possession of his wife Emma Woodruff.” In this account, written upwards of twenty years after the event, Joseph Smith is described as lying on his back in his wagon when he received the vision in “open day” regarding not only Zelph but the mound and its history. Zelph is here described as a “short, stout, thick set” man, in contrast to the extremely tall man in the Moses Martin account. According to Woodruff, Zelph had joined the Nephites and fought for them under the direction of the Prophet Onandagus, who “held sway” from the Hill Cumorah and eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains. Zelph’s thigh bone was broken by a stone while in a battle in his youth, and he was killed by the arrow found in his back. We are led to believe that the thigh bone was buried near the Clay County house owned by a Colonel Arthur and that Emma Woodruff had possession of the arrow, not Brigham Young. This might indicate that President Young did not attach any particular significance to either the arrow or the remains in which it was found. Finally, in this account, Zelph was clearly associated with the Nephites, as was Onandagus.

On 22 February 1893, James E. Talmage reported a visit with Wilford Woodruff during which President Woodruff showed him “a sacred relic then in his possession in the shape of an Indian arrow head.” This arrow was said to have been the cause of the death of the white Lamanite, Zelph. According to Talmage’s account the arrow point had come into Wilford Woodruff’s possession through Zina Young Card, a daughter of Brigham Young, who had formerly had possession of it. At the suggestion of George F. Gibbs, his secretary, President Woodruff then dictated the following account of the finding of Zelph (This account was obtained by Richard L. Anderson on October 31, 1986 from the George A. Smith family papers, MS 36, box 174, folder 1, p. 26, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Questions have been raised regarding the arrowhead referred to in the Woodruff account. The arrowhead that was found in the Church Archives and shown to experts seems to be of the type used by the Plains Indians and is probably not more than a few hundred years old). Notable features of this version include:

“While traveling with Zion’s camp, through the State of Ohio, we came to a very •

high mound, to the top of which we climbed by means of steps over which grass had grown. The steps were very wide, probably about twelve feet. We found the top of the mound to be quite level and to cover a great deal of ground. After overlooking the surrounding country, and descending half way down we were halted by command of the Prophet Joseph. We had taken a shovel with us to the top of the mound, thinking we might have some use for it, and after halting, the Prophet, speaking to the man who had the shovel, told him to throw up the dirt at a certain place to which he pointed, After removing a little more than six inches of soil the skeleton of a man was discovered, from a joint in whose backbone the Prophet drew a flint arrow head which had been the means of taking his life.”

In this account, dictated fifty-nine years after the event, Woodruff said he accompanied the Prophet onto the hill, which was not the case according to his earlier accounts. He also adds details that are absent from his journal and from the other primary sources. He tells us they took the shovel with them, while others said they had to send for them after they arrived on top of the hill. He also states that they were halfway down the hill before they began digging and that they commenced at the request of the Prophet himself. President Woodruff also tells us that they found ancient steps which they used to make their way up the hill.

According to James L. Bradley, who has visited the mound many times, there are no steps leading to the top, or altars. However, Kenneth W. Godfrey recently climbed the eastern side of the mound and found in certain places indentations that might be described as steps. Understandably, some details had faded in the memory of President Woodruff and other points had been logically added over the space of many intervening years. Still several basic parts of the story are recognizable in this late recollection.

4. Levi Hancock. The longest and most detailed near-contemporaneous account was written by Levi Hancock, later one of the Presidents of the Seventy. Like Wilford Woodruff, he was not with the group that discovered the remains of Zelph, but he saw the bones and the arrowhead they brought back to camp. Hancock’s account includes the following notable features (Levi Hancock, Diary, photocopy in LDS Church Archives. Typically Hancock did not let many days pass without writing in his diary):

• “On the way to Illinois River where we camped on the west side in the morning, many went to see the big mound about a mile below the crossing, I did not go on it but saw some bones that was brought with a broken arrow.”

• Joseph addressed himself to Sylvester Smith, “This is what I told you and now I want to tell you that you may know what I meant; this land was called the land of desolation and Onendagus (note spelling) was the king and a good man was he, there in that mound did he bury his dead and did not dig holes as the people do now but they brought there dirt and covered them until you see they have raised it to be about one hundred feet high, the last man buried was Zelf.”

• “He (Zelph) was a white Lamanite who fought with the people of Onendagus for freedom, when he was young he was a great warrior and had his [thigh] broken and never was set. It knitted together as you see on the side, he fought after it got strength until he lost every tooth in his head save one when the Lord said he had done enough and suffered him to be killed by that arrow you took from his breast.”

“I then remembered what he [Joseph] had said a few days before while passing •

many mounds on our way that was left of us; said he, ‘there are the bodies of wicked men who have died and are angry at us; if they can take the advantage of us they will, for if we live they will have no hope.’ I could not comprehend it but supposed it was all right.”

Hancock reports different information than do the earlier accounts when he tells us the land was named Desolation, and “Onendagus” was a king and a good man. But he says nothing about his being a prophet. However, he does inform us that Zelph lost all his teeth but one, and he implies that Zelph was relatively aged at death. His account makes no mention of the Hill Cumorah or of Onandagus’s wide fame, but it agrees that Zelph was a white Lamanite. Hancock’s is the only source to report any specific circumstances surrounding Joseph Smith’s statements about the skeleton, and this information may be significant: Joseph spoke about it to Sylvester Smith. This is not a trivial point, for Sylvester Smith was a troublemaker in the camp who “rebelled against the order of the camp,” eventually apostatizing (Hancock, Diary, 14 and 17 May 1834).

We do not know to what extent others heard Joseph speak about Zelph or whether some of their information was filtered through Sylvester Smith. The possibility seems small, however, that Sylvester Smith had much influence on the story, since no other account mentions him. Joseph’s addressing him specifically may have been intended as a warning of evil influences and threats from “the bodies of the wicked men” buried in these mounds who were “angry” at the camp as they marched through “desolation.” Such threats surrounding the group required their fullest obedience and alertness in order to escape.

5. Heber C. Kimball. An account by Heber C. Kimball of the discovery of Zelph was published in the Times and Seasons in 1845 under the title, “Extracts from H. C. Kimball’s Journal.” An identical account, except for a lack of editing, is found in the autobiography Kimball dictated to James Sloan after the saints arrived in the Salt Lake Valley (Heber C. Kimball, Autobiography, LDS Church Archives). The version in the autobiography contributes the following:

• “On Tuesday the 3rd, we went up, several of us, with Joseph Smith Jr. to the top of a mound on the bank of the Illinois river, which was several hundred feet above the river, and from the summit of which we had a pleasant view of the surrounding country: We could overlook the tops of the trees on to the meadow or prairie on each side the river as far as our eyes could extend, which was one of the most pleasant scenes I ever beheld.”

• “On the top of this mound there was the appearance of three altars, which had been built of stone, one above another, according to the ancient order; and the ground was strewn over with human bones. This caused in us very peculiar feelings, to see the bones of our fellow creatures scattered in this manner, who had been slain in ages past.”

• “We felt prompted to dig down into the mound, and sending for a shovel and hoe, we proceeded to move away the earth. At about one foot deep we discovered the skeleton of a man, almost entire; and between two of his ribs we found an Indian arrow, which had evidently been the cause of his death. We took the leg and thigh bones and carried them along with us to Clay County. Elder B. Young has yet the arrow in his possession.”

• “The same day, we pursued our journey. While on our way we felt anxious to know who the person was who had been killed by that arrow. It was made known to Joseph that he had been an officer who fell in battle, in the last destruction among the Lamanites, and his name was Zelph.”

• “Brother Joseph had enquired of the Lord and it was made known in a vision.” This account was probably written after the Saints had arrived in the Salt Lake Valley. There is evidence that the autobiography was taken from the Times and Seasons 6, 1 February 1845: 788).

Only Heber C. Kimball says that Zelph was killed in “the last destruction among the Lamanites,” and the meaning of this phrase is unclear. “Last” may refer to the final destruction of the Nephites fifteen hundred years earlier, or it may have reference to the last battle of Zelph’s people, whoever they were. The battle was “among the Lamanites,” which may mean between the Nephites and the Lamanites but may also refer to a battle of Lamanites against other Lamanites, if we assume that the Lamanites may have had prophets among them. Kimball’s account is also unique in that he says he went with Joseph Smith to the top of the mound and relates that they felt prompted to dig down into the mound, but first they had to send for a shovel and hoe. The discovery was made after digging about one foot.

The other early accounts do not say that Joseph was present when the bones were dug up. Rather they state or imply that he was not involved until some time later. According to Kimball, it was later in the day while continuing on the journey westward that the Prophet made the identification of the person whose bones they had found. This is consistent with Hancock’s statement that Joseph spoke “as the camp was moving off the ground.” Kimball states further that this was made known by means of a vision to Joseph after he had inquired of the Lord.

Kimball’s account has a different tone from the earlier ones, especially those of Martin and Hancock. Instead of mentioning any concerns about death, destruction, evil influences, the angry dead, or thousands of graves, Kimball paints an idyllic scene, pleasantly overlooking meadow and tree tops, and he recalls their “peculiar feelings” as feelings of sympathy for these “fellow creatures” whose bones had been scattered in ages past. His depiction is in keeping with the joyous spirit reflected in a letter Joseph wrote to Emma during those days (see below).

Kimball also speaks of locating certain remains that had “the appearance” of three altars, a detail mentioned in no other primary source. The passage of time may have dimmed Kimball’s memory on this point. His account appears to be a later recollection, written possibly around 1843. Moreover, Kimball’s account makes no explicit reference to the Nephites, and he sees the value of Joseph’s vision primarily not in what it revealed about the ancient inhabitants of that region, but in how it showed that “God was so mindful of” the camp and especially of his “servant, Brother Joseph.”

6. George A. Smith. George A. Smith was another member of Zion’s Camp who became an apostle. He included the following unique information in a history prepared in 1857 (2 June 1834, LDS Church Archives. The following note was appended: “a narrative of which is published in the Church History”):

• “Monday, 2 June 1834: Some of us visited a mound on a bluff about 300 feet high and dug up some bones, which excited deep interest among the brethren. The President and many others visited the mound on the following morning.”

According to this brief version, Joseph’s visit to the mound came on the morning after the discovery of the skeleton.

#The Importance of the Several Original Accounts

Brother Godfrey described his reasons for considering carefully the several accounts of the primary witnesses to this event:

My purpose in scrutinizing these accounts closely is not in any way to discredit the diligent writers of these diary and journal entries. Given the circumstances under which these records were kept and the independent viewpoint of most of the authors, it is remarkable that they agree in as many respects as they do. There can be no doubt that the men of Zion’s Camp were deeply impressed by the discovery on 3 June 1834 of the bones of a man Joseph Smith called Zelph. Nevertheless, the accounts give varying and sometimes conflicting details. Interestingly, the earlier accounts do not expressly identify Zelph with the Nephites, as do the later accounts. Perhaps this is because Joseph’s statements to his brethren were not as clear to them at the time they were made as they seemed in retrospect or as we might be inclined to assume today. It also appears that some information couched in somewhat speculative terms in the earlier accounts later came to be understood with greater certainty and specificity. For these reasons, close and cautious examination of these historical records is necessary (Godfrey, 42 ).

#The Zelph Story and Joseph Smith’s Book History of the Church

The foregoing examination of the primary sources for the Zelph story has laid the foundation for a comparison of them with the section on Zelph in the History of the Church, the most familiar source on this subject. The story is related in this history as if Joseph Smith himself were telling it, but that is not actually the case. How then did the story reach its present form in this history?

In 1842, Willard Richards, as Church Historian, was assigned the task of compiling a large number of documents and producing a history of the Church from them. He worked on this material between December 21, 1842 and March 27, 1843. He himself had not joined the Church until 1836, but he would easily have learned from associates that Joseph Smith had kept no record of the march of Zion’s Camp. Therefore, Richards presumably had to rely on the writings or recollections of Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff, and perhaps others for his information. The McBride and Martin accounts in particular, and perhaps also the Hancock record, may have been unknown to him, as the writers were not prominent Church figures. It is possible that Richards consulted with Joseph Smith, for the Prophet was overseeing the preparation of the history.

Blending the sources available to him, and perhaps using oral accounts from some of the members of Zion’s Camp, but writing as if he were Joseph Smith, historian

Richards drafted the story of Zelph as it appears in the “Manuscript History of the Church, Book A-l”:

Tuesday the 3rd—During our travels we visited several of the mounds which had been thrown up by the ancient inhabitants of this country, Nephites, Lamanites &c. and this morning I went up on a high mound near the river, accompanied by several the brethren. From this mound we could overlook the tops of the trees and view the prairie on each side of the river as far as our vision could extend and the scenery was truly delightful.

On the top of the mound were stones which presented the appearance of three altars having been erected one above the other, according to ancient order and the remains of human bones were strewn over the surface of the ground. The brethren procured a shovel and hoe, and removing the earth to the depth of about one foot discovered the skeleton of a man, almost entire, and between his ribs the stone point of was a Lamanitish arrow, which evidently produced his death. Elder . . . Brigham Young retained the Arrow, and the [brethren] carried some pieces of the skeleton to Clay County. The contemplation of the scenery around [and] fore us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms and subsequently the vision of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose Skeleton we had seen was before us was a white Lamanite, a large thick set man and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus who was known from the hill Cumorah or eastern Sea, to the Rocky Mountains . . . The curse was taken from Zelph . . . or at least, in part. One of his thigh bones was broken by a stone flung from a sling, while in battle, years before his death. He was killed in battle, by the arrow found among his ribs, during a last great struggle with the Lamanites and Nephites.

Elder Woodruff carried the thigh bone to Clay county (Joseph Smith, “Manuscript History of the Church, Book A-I,” 3 June 1834, LDS Church Archives, see n. 1, Addenda p. 5).

It is apparent that a number of details were not settled in Richards’s mind as he drafted and revised this statement. A close study of the primary accounts enables us to see how Richards probably came to write what he did. Since this was only one small incident in a long narrative, he understandably did not go to great lengths to check for detailed consistency in what he wrote. At any rate, he introduced minor differences or discrepancies into the story. For example, Wilford Woodruff’s “inhabitants of this continent” became “the inhabitants of this country” (others would later say “county”), and Woodruff’s statement that mounds in the area had been built “probably by the Nephites and Lamanites” became an implied certainty when Richards left out the word “probably.” The mere “arrow” of the three earliest accounts became an “Indian Arrow” (as in Kimball), and finally a “Lamanitish Arrow.” The phrase “known from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains,” as in the McBride diary, became “known from the Hill Cumorah” (stricken out) or “eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains,” similar to words penned by Wilford Woodruff. The statement that the battle in which Zelph was killed occurred “among the Lamanites” (as in Kimball) became “with the Lamanites.” We cannot tell whether these changes were true to Joseph Smith’s original intent, for they give the account an air of greater precision than may have been originally present.

A second copy of the same material exists, known as “Manuscript History of the Church, Book A-2,” apparently written entirely in the hand of Wilmer Benson. It differs from the Richards version in a dozen details of spelling, punctuation, and phrasing, but only two differences are substantive. Where Richards describes Zelph as “a man of God,” Benson puts “a son of God,” and Richards’ “a great struggle with the Lamanites” reads in Benson, “the last great struggle with the Lamanites.” The second manuscript was written as a back-up in case the first was lost or destroyed.

Following the martyrdom of the Prophet, the Times and Seasons published serially the “History of Joseph Smith.” When the story of the finding of Zelph appeared in the January 1, 1846 issue, it read as follows:

We encamped on the bank of the river until Tuesday the 3rd during our travels we visited several of the mounds which had been thrown up by the ancient inhabitants of this county, Nephites, Lamanites, &c., and this morning I went up on a high mound, near the river, accompanied by the brethren. From this mound we could overlook the tops of the trees and view the prairie on each side of the river as far as our vision could extend, and the scenery was truly delightful. On the top of the mound were stones which presented the appearance of three alters having been erected one above the other, according to ancient order; and human bones were strewn over the surface of the ground. The brethren procured a shovel and hoe, and removing the earth to the depth of about one foot discovered [the] skeleton of a man, almost entire, and between his ribs was a Lamanitish arrow, which evidently produced his death, Elder Brigham Young retained the arrow and the brethren carried some pieces of the skeleton to Clay county. The contemplation of the scenery before us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms; and the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the spent [sic] of the Almighty I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us, was a white Lamanite, a large thick set man, and a man of God. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Omandagus, who was known from the hill Cumorah, or Eastern sea, to the Rocky Mountains. His name was

Zelph. The curse was taken from him, or at least, in part; one of his thigh bones was broken, by a stone flung from a sling, while in battle years before his death. He was killed in battle, by the arrow found among his ribs, during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites (Times and Seasons 6, 1 January 1846: 1076).

Many of the words that were crossed out in the Richards manuscript are, for some unknown reason, included in this publication, along with the point that the prophet’s name was Omandagus (spelling). The reference to the Hill Cumorah, from the unemended Wilford Woodruff journal, is still included in the narrative. Further, the concluding sentence in the Times and Seasons account reads, “during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites,” whereas both the Richards and Benson manuscripts had crossed off “and Nephites.”

The story of Zelph appeared again in June 1888 in the Historical Record, a periodical edited and published by Andrew Jenson, the Church’s primary historical writer at that time. In this account, Burr Riggs, and not Brigham Young, is said to have retained the arrow, and the Hill Cumorah is still mentioned, as are the Nephites (Historical Record 7, June 1888: 581).

The 1904 first edition of the B. H. Roberts edited, seven-volume History of the Church repeats the account as Richards had left it. In 1948, after Joseph Fielding Smith had become Church Historian, explicit references to the Hill Cumorah and the Nephites were reintroduced (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 7 vols., Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1902, 2:79-80. Compare 1948 edition, 79-80).

When Reorganized LDS Church historian Heman C. Smith, in 1922, wrote his “History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 1805-1890,” he followed the 1845 Times and Seasons account with only minor editing. However, he did not give Zelph’s name (Heman C. Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 7 vols., Independence, Mo.: Board of Publications of the Reorganized Church, 1922, 1:460-61).

It is obvious, then, that historians in both the LDS and RLDS churches have written the accounts so that the reader believes he is reading the Prophet Joseph Smith’s own words. While, as Dean Jessee has shown, this was an accepted practice among nineteenth-century historians (Dean C. Jessee, “Has Mormon History Been Deliberately Falsified,” Mormon Miscellaneous, no. 2, April 1982: 1-6; “The Reliability of Joseph Smith’s History,” Journal of Mormon History 3, 1976: 23-46), it has misled many readers by conveying the impression that Joseph Smith personally recorded far more about the events in which he participated than was the case. Moreover, the official historians would be faulted by modern scholars both for shaping and modifying the published narratives to agree with particular sources without considering their factual merits and for ignoring several of the earliest sources.

Kenneth Godfrey notes: “I shall not attempt to reconstruct what Joseph Smith may have said to members of Zion’s Camp regarding Zelph on 3 and 4 June 1834. His exact words are beyond our historical grasp. But it seems to me we are warranted in drawing certain conclusions from the available evidence” (Godfrey, 45).

#The Significance of the Zelph Story

Brother Godfrey writes:

It seems obvious that discussion and argumentation about historical and geographical questions in LDS circles has put more weight than is justified on the detailed phrasing of the account of Zelph as it is published in the History of the Church. . . .

An examination of the original accounts of the events of 3 June 1834 yields the following general descriptions: The extant accounts vary widely in length (from 40 to about 375 words) and in the range of information they cover. Where they report statements or observations about the same particular point, unanimity is rare; noticeably different “facts” are reported about the same events. Only Hancock’s account makes it perfectly clear that he was not a firsthand witness to the primary happenings. All the others leave it unclear whether the writers saw or heard for themselves some or all of what they report or whether their information came by hearsay. In no case are we certain how much time elapsed before the journal accounts were recorded.

The experience of historians and the experiments of psychologists have established that precise recall of details about a happening fades notoriously rapidly. Differences in the reported facts among the basic sources may owe in part to delays in recording. Certainly Wilford Woodruff’s recollections fifty-nine years after the event were markedly inaccurate, and Heber C. Kimball’s story, which he seems to have put on the record at least a decade after the Zelph affair, contains phrasings only uncertainly supported by other accounts. The earlier accounts are more tentative, including words such as “suposed” (McBride), “suppose” and “no doubt” (Martin), “probably” and “undecided” (Woodruff). The later accounts are more specific and certain. . . .

While it is impossible with the available evidence to reconstruct the exact process by which the narrative, as it appears in the History of the Church, was constructed by historical writers, some points are apparent. Practically all elements of the story incorporated into the account by Willard Richards are found in just two sources, Woodruff and Kimball. Kimball’s diaries begin with his British mission in 1837, and the journal from which the account of the finding of Zelph is taken was dictated from memory to Robert B. Thompson in 1840. It is probable that Joseph Smith read what his clerks, Willard Richards and Wilmer Benson, wrote about this event for the History of the Church. Their manuscript accounts cross out all reference to “the Nephites” and to the “hill Cumorah.” We cannot know on present evidence, however, whether the crossing out was at Joseph’s instance or with his approval.

That members of Zion’s Camp dug up a skeleton near the Illinois River in early June 1834 is certain. Equally sure is that Joseph Smith made statements about the deceased person and his historical setting. It is unclear which statements attributed to him derived from his vision, as opposed to being implied or surmised either by him or by others. Nothing in the diaries suggests that the mound itself was discovered by revelation. Moses Martin indicates that the men dug because they were “filled with curiosity.” Levi Hancock simply reports that “many went to see the big mound about a mile below the crossing.” Heber C. Kimball seems to say they went to the mound to get “a pleasant view of the surrounding country.”

Most sources agree that Zelph was a white Lamanite who fought under a leader named Onandagus (variously spelled). Beyond that, what Joseph said to his men is not entirely clear, judging by the variations in the available sources. Therefore, those who try to support a particular historical or geographical point of view about the Book of Mormon by citing the Zelph story are on inconclusive grounds.

The date of the man Zelph remains unclear. Expressions such as “great struggles among the Lamanites,” if accurately reported, could refer to a period long after the close of the Book of Mormon narrative as well as to the fourth century AD. None of the sources before the Willard Richards composition, however, actually say that Zelph died in battle with the Nephites, only that he died “in battle” when the otherwise unidentified people of Onandagus were engaged in great wars “among the Lamanites.” Archaeological research in mounds near the one where the bones of Zelph were discovered indicates that the mounds and the artifacts found within them belong to the Middle Woodland Period, dated somewhere between perhaps 100 BC and AD 500. However, the Zelph skeleton came from a shallow burial near the top of the mound. Who knows whether it was intrusive, buried there more recently than the period of the main mound construction? Apostle John A. Widtsoe once wrote [referring to the Zelph story], “[This is not of much value in Book of Mormon studies, since] Zelph probably dated from a later time when the Nephites and Lamanites had been somewhat dispersed and had wandered over the country” (John A. Widtsoe, “Is Book of Mormon Geography Known?” Improvement Era 53, July 1950: 451). Thus, it is unclear when Zelph himself lived.

Zelph was identified as a “Lamanite,” a label agreed on by all the accounts. This term might refer to the ethnic and cultural category spoken of in the Book of Mormon as actors in the destruction of the Nephites, or it might refer more generally to a descendant of the earlier Lamanites and could have been considered in 1834 as the equivalent of “Indian” (see, for example, D&C 3:18, 20; 10:48; 28:8; 32:2). Nothing in this study can settle the question of Zelph’s specific ethnic identity (Godfrey, 46-48).

#Conclusion

Where does all this lead us? What can we conclude about Zelph? What does the Zelph incident tell us about LDS Church history, Book of Mormon geography, and Joseph Smith? What did Joseph mean when he said Zelph was a “white Lamanite”?

Joseph’s intended meaning in 1834, seems clear. It is apparent he did attribute Nephite/Lamanite origins to this skeleton. In a letter written to Emma during that time, Joseph referred to the members of Zion’s Camp as “wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity” (Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1984, 324). It is obvious that in 1834 Joseph believed parts of the Book of Mormon story took place in that part of North America. Those critical of the Church are quick to point out the conflict between Joseph’s geographic concepts of the Book of Mormon and present-day concepts:

The Lord through Joseph could not have been any clearer that this very mound was within the boundaries of Book of Mormon lands . . . The rejection of Joseph Smith’s statements about Zelph is required by Mesoamerican proponents [those who believe in the limited geography theory] to maintain a belief in their geographical inclinations. . . . They must discard the statements of Joseph Smith for the acceptance of their proposed theories (Porter and Meldrum, Prophecies and Promises, 107).

We do know that the prophet Joseph himself did not record the incident himself, and so we are dependent upon the accounts of six other members of Zion’s Camp who were present during or near the time of the event. When these accounts are analyzed it appears that the Prophet received revelation about an individual named Zelph, but it is unclear what, if any, relationship Zelph and his activities may have had to the events and the geography of the Book of Mormon narrative. I believe today we need not assume that Zelph was a part of, or a descendant of, the Nephite/Lamanite culture of the Book of Mormon.

The details of what Joseph did and did not say on that occasion are unclear. He may well have said some things implying that the burial mound was in “Book of Mormon lands.” Joseph’s preconceptions and understandings at that time might well be expected to influence what he said. He spoke using the best of his comprehension at the time. While there were likely divine elements in his pronouncements, there likely were also evidences of Joseph’s flawed understandings in 1834. From a practical standpoint, this need not be a matter of significant concern. Some have worried, “Can we not simply take Joseph Smith at his word in all matters? Isn’t the Zelph story, in some ways, misleading and false?” Joseph Smith was a man called by the Lord to be a prophet of God. In all revelatory matters Joseph simply reported as he felt impressed. He seemed never to be concerned with creating a grand tapestry free of any inconsistencies. He didn’t have to. He wasn’t involved in any scheme to deceive. He knew he was on the Lord’s errand. He simply reported information he received as he felt inspired to do. There was no manipulation or retrofitting. Joseph was sincere and honest and was obviously learning as he went along. Might Joseph have made some errors based on his own misunderstandings? Of course. We are well-counseled to be cautious about drawing unwarranted conclusions from the Zelph account.