Desert.com: Understanding Joseph Smith through the eyes of those who knew him
‘A plain, sensible, strong-minded man’: The people who knew the Prophet best describe his goodness, integrity.
Somewhere along the six-hour horseback ride from Nauvoo to Carthage, Ill., where Joseph Smith was martyred in 1844, he shared with his small group of travel companions a foreboding that he would soon be killed. “But,” he said, “I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense toward God, and toward all men.”
That’s how Joseph Smith — the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — described his own conscience, days before being fatally attacked by a 150–200-person mob.
But in the years since Joseph Smith’s death, another kind of mob has grown, comprised of those aiming to sully his reputation.
The December 22, 2025, Deseret News article by Jacob Hess presents a carefully curated portrait of Joseph Smith that exemplifies what historians call “faith-promoting history”—a narrative approach that emphasizes positive accounts while systematically omitting troubling historical evidence. This is recognized as a classic example of institutional apologetics masquerading as balanced journalism. While the article doesn’t technically lie, it engages in what might be called “selective truth-telling,” presenting an incomplete picture that would mislead anyone unfamiliar with the broader historical record.
The Strategy of Selective Testimony
The article’s primary methodology involves showcasing testimonials from believers and “dispassionate observers” who found Smith sincere and impressive. This approach, while not inherently dishonest, creates a fundamentally distorted picture through strategic omission. The piece quotes Emmeline B. Wells describing Smith’s “gentle, chivalrous and reverential manner towards all women” and journalist Matthew Davis calling him “a plain, sensible, strong-minded man.” These accounts may reflect genuine impressions, but they represent only one dimension of a far more complex and troubling reality.
What the article conspicuously avoids is the extensive documentary evidence of Smith’s pattern of deception, particularly regarding plural marriage. The historical record demonstrates that Smith secretly practiced polygamy beginning in the 1830s while publicly denying it repeatedly. He married approximately 30-40 women, including teenagers as young as 14 (Helen Mar Kimball) and women who were already married to other men (polyandry). When rumors circulated about these marriages, Smith and other church leaders issued categorical denials. The Times and Seasons newspaper, which Smith controlled, published explicit rejections of polygamy accusations in 1842 and 1844, calling them “false and slanderous.”
The article’s celebration of Smith’s marriage to Emma as evidence of his character becomes particularly problematic when we understand that Emma was largely kept in the dark about many of these marriages and was reportedly devastated when she discovered the truth. Historical documents, including Emma’s own later statements and accounts from other wives, reveal a pattern of deception that contradicts the “honest, frank” and “free from dissimulation” characterization offered by John M. Bernhisel.
The Charlatan Question and Documentary Evidence
Matthew C. Godfrey, managing historian of the Joseph Smith Papers, is quoted as dismissing accusations that Smith was “an impostor and a charlatan.” Yet the historical record presents significant evidence that complicates this defense. Before founding the LDS church, Smith was involved in folk magic and treasure-seeking activities, for which he was actually brought to trial in 1826 in Bainbridge, New York, on charges related to “glass looking”—using seer stones to locate buried treasure for paying clients.
The court documents from this trial (which Mormon historians debated the authenticity of for years before generally accepting them) show Smith admitting to these activities. This wasn’t simply youthful indiscretion; Smith later used similar methodology—claiming to translate the Book of Mormon using a seer stone placed in a hat—which he had previously employed in treasure-seeking schemes. The continuity between these practices raises legitimate questions about the nature of his prophetic claims.
Furthermore, the Book of Abraham presents perhaps the most devastating challenge to Smith’s prophetic credentials. Smith claimed to translate ancient Egyptian papyri, producing the Book of Abraham, which he declared was written by Abraham’s own hand. When Egyptology developed as a science and the papyri were rediscovered in 1967, scholars conclusively demonstrated that the papyri were common Egyptian funerary texts (the Book of Breathings) dating to approximately 100 BCE—more than a thousand years after Abraham’s supposed lifetime. Smith’s “translations” bore no relationship whatsoever to the actual content of the documents. This isn’t a matter of theological interpretation; it’s demonstrable fraud or delusion.
The Nauvoo Expositor and Freedom of the Press
The article mentions Smith’s martyrdom at Carthage, but fails to explain why he was there. Smith had ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper that had published a single issue exposing his practice of plural marriage and criticizing his political ambitions. On June 10, 1844, acting as Nauvoo’s mayor, Smith declared the newspaper a “nuisance” and ordered the Nauvoo city marshal to destroy the printing press.
This act of tyranny—the violent suppression of a free press—led to charges against Smith and precipitated the events culminating in his death. The article’s silence on this context is deafening. It presents Smith as a martyr with “a conscience void of offense toward God, and toward all men,” without acknowledging that he was in custody specifically for violating constitutional principles of press freedom. Illinois Governor Thomas Ford, whom the article mentions only in passing, was actually deeply troubled by Smith’s authoritarian actions.
Fact Checking the Newspaper Joseph Smith Tried to Silence.
The Kinderhook Plates Deception
Another significant omission involves the Kinderhook Plates incident of 1843. Several men created fake ancient plates with bogus inscriptions and buried them near Kinderhook, Illinois, specifically to test Smith’s prophetic abilities. Smith took the bait, claiming he could translate them and identifying them as containing “the history of the person with whom they were found.” Years later, one of the hoaxers confessed to the fraud. This incident demonstrates either Smith’s willingness to claim translation abilities he didn’t possess or his inability to distinguish genuine ancient records from contemporary forgeries—neither option supports the portrait of prophetic integrity the Deseret News article attempts to construct.
The Banking Scandal and Financial Deception
The article’s discussion of Smith’s integrity also ignores the Kirtland Safety Society debacle. In 1837, Smith founded an unauthorized bank (technically an “anti-banking society” to circumvent Ohio banking laws) and encouraged church members to invest heavily. When the institution collapsed during the Panic of 1837, many faithful Latter-day Saints lost their life savings. Accusations flew that Smith and other church leaders had known the institution was unstable but continued promoting it while quietly divesting their own interests. This scandal led to significant apostasy among early church members and contributed to serious credibility problems for Smith’s leadership.
Theological Inconsistencies and Evolving Doctrines
The article presents Smith as someone with consistent, divine revelation, but the historical record shows constant theological evolution and contradiction. Smith’s account of his First Vision changed significantly over time. The earliest known account (written in 1832) differs substantially from the canonical 1838 version in crucial details: the 1832 version mentions only Jesus Christ appearing, while the later version describes both God the Father and Jesus Christ. The theological implications of these differences are profound, yet Smith never acknowledged these variations or explained why his story changed.
Similarly, the Book of Mormon originally supported Trinitarian theology (the idea that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one being), which Smith later rejected in favor of his mature theology of separate divine personages. Rather than acknowledging this evolution, the LDS church has retroactively edited Book of Mormon passages to align with later doctrine—changing “the Eternal Father” to “the Son of the Eternal Father,” for example, in 1 Nephi 11:21 and other verses.
The Danites and Violence
The article’s portrayal of Smith as peaceful and persecuted also omits discussion of the Danites, a secret society of Mormon enforcers organized in 1838 with Smith’s knowledge and probable direction. This group engaged in intimidation, property destruction, and violence against both apostates and non-Mormons in Missouri. While the extent of Smith’s direct involvement remains debated, contemporary documents make clear that he was aware of and benefited from their activities. The violence wasn’t entirely one-directional; Mormon aggression contributed significantly to the escalating conflict that led to the Missouri Mormon War and the infamous Extermination Order.
The Methodology of Institutional Apologetics
What makes the Deseret News article particularly problematic from a scholarly perspective is its use of church-employed historians like Matthew C. Godfrey and Ronald O. Barney to provide seemingly objective commentary. These scholars work for an institution with a vested interest in presenting Smith favorably. While they may be sincere in their beliefs and competent in their technical work, citing them as neutral authorities is methodologically questionable. It’s analogous to asking tobacco company scientists about the safety of cigarettes—the institutional context creates inherent conflicts of interest.
The article also employs the classic apologetic move of dismissing troubling evidence as attacks from a “mob” aiming “to sully his reputation,” thus framing any critical examination as persecution rather than legitimate historical inquiry. This rhetorical strategy immunizes Smith from scholarly scrutiny by characterizing all criticism as persecution fulfilling prophecy, creating an unfalsifiable narrative.
The Question of Sincerity Versus Deception
Perhaps the article’s most significant analytical failure is its assumption that sincerity and deception are mutually exclusive. People can be simultaneously sincere in certain beliefs while deliberately deceptive about specific facts. Smith may have genuinely believed he had a divine mission while also lying about plural marriage, fabricating translations, and manipulating followers for personal gain. These psychological complexities are lost in the article’s black-and-white framing.
Conclusion: History Versus Hagiography
The Deseret News article represents institutional hagiography rather than responsible journalism or scholarship. By presenting only faith-promoting testimonials while systematically excluding documented deceptions, legal troubles, financial scandals, sexual misconduct, and authoritarian behavior, it constructs a false portrait designed to buttress faith rather than illuminate truth.
Honest historical examination of Joseph Smith must grapple with the full documentary record: the treasure-seeking fraud conviction, the demonstrably false Book of Abraham translations, the secret polygamy practiced while publicly lying about it, the destruction of a free press, the banking scandal, the evolving and contradictory theological claims, and the pattern of authoritarian control. These aren’t anti-Mormon fabrications; they’re documented historical facts acknowledged even by faithful LDS scholars, though often with extensive apologetic framing.
The tragedy is that such whitewashed presentations ultimately undermine faith rather than strengthening it. When believers encounter the full historical record—as they increasingly do through internet resources—the cognitive dissonance between the sanitized narrative and documented reality creates faith crises. A more honest approach, acknowledging Smith’s complexity and flaws while making theological arguments for his prophetic role despite these problems, would serve both truth and faith more effectively than this exercise in selective memory.
As scholars committed to historical truth, we must insist that religious devotion never justifies distorting the historical record. Joseph Smith was a fascinating, complex, and controversial figure who shaped American religious history profoundly. He deserves serious, honest scholarly examination—not the hagiographic treatment offered by this Deseret News article, which ultimately disrespects both Smith’s complexity and the intelligence of its readers.
This article was generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy and relevance, the content reflects AI-generated insights, but it has been carefully edited by this author.