Scott Woodward: Consider the following Carthage controversy questions: Was Governor Thomas Ford complicit in the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith? When Joseph fired back at the Carthage attackers, did he kill anyone? Also, does the fact that Joseph fired back at the mob somehow take away his status as a martyr for his religion? Is it true that Joseph and his friends in Carthage Jail drank wine together? Also, were they not wearing their temple garments in jail? And is it true that Joseph Smith’s last words, “O Lord, my God,” were a Masonic cry for help? Are the death masks of Joseph and Hyrum Smith an accurate representation of them? And is John Taylor’s account of how his pocket watch was damaged during the attack actually accurate? Who actually wrote Doctrine and Covenants 135? Well, in today’s episode of Church History Matters, we are tackling these and other Carthage controversies. I’m Scott Woodward, and my co-host is Casey Griffiths, and today, Casey and I dive into our sixth episode in this series about the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. Now, let’s get into it. Well, hi, Casey. 

Casey Griffiths: Hi, Scott. Here we are once again. 

Scott Woodward: Here we are in the aftermath of the martyrdom. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, this is meaty stuff, right? And I don’t know how we’re going to end this one because there’s so much to talk about, but I feel like I say that in every series. We always start out thinking, oh, this will be a nice two- or three-episode thing, and then it turns into a huge thing, and it’s just because there’s no bottom to this, right? You just keep finding new angles and new insights, and I’m loving it. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. We kind of view ourselves as kind of the synthesizers of a lot of people’s great work, especially the Joseph Smith Papers and full-length books, and we’re trying to synthesize all of that for our listeners, but—

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: —we don’t want you to stop here. If you’re liking what you’re hearing, there’s much more to go into to go deeper. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. We are standing on the shoulders of giants. We’re stealing from good historians, but it’s not stealing if you cite your sources, which is what we always try to do.

Scott Woodward: That’s right. Yeah. But this has been a great series, though. I honestly—last series was solemn and somber to talk about the play-by-play of the martyrdom, but today we want to take a little different angle on all of that, don’t we? 

Casey Griffiths: Yes, and I want to also thank you for our last episode for finding an authentic Englishman to read John Taylor’s account.

Scott Woodward: Isn’t Christian Mawlam awesome? 

Casey Griffiths: He’s so awesome. 

Scott Woodward: You know, what’s kind of cool about Christian Mawlam too, is that he’s actually from, not the same town as John Taylor, but up in the same area. I think Taylor might be to the East and Christian’s on the West side or vice versa—I can’t remember. I was talking to Christian about it, and he said he was honored to be able to read it because he was from a similar area that John Taylor actually hailed from, and so the accent was probably fairly close. I thought that was pretty special. 

Casey Griffiths: That’s us. We’re all about authenticity—except I read Willard Richards, and I did not attempt a Massachusetts accent. 

Scott Woodward: You nailed it with your Americana. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, I guess so. I tried to capture the spirit, if not the accent. 

Scott Woodward: Because you’re from Delta, right? Like, that’s basically same as Massachusetts. 

Casey Griffiths: We like to say Delta is the Massachusetts of Utah. Yeah, we’re the Harvard of the West. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah, so if our listeners don’t know that, that’s good for them to know now that Delta, Utah is— 

Casey Griffiths: The Harvard of the West, yeah. 

Scott Woodward: Harvard of the West. 

Casey Griffiths: Okay, so let’s quick recap. 

Scott Woodward: Yes. 

Casey Griffiths: Because last time all we did basically was sort of say, here’s what happened, and we didn’t offer much interpretation, and I think today what we’re going to try and do is get into the, well, okay, what do we know and what do we not know about this? But— 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: —we did want you to hear Willard Richards’ and John Taylor’s voices, because they’re the two most important witnesses of the martyrdom. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: So I’m going to recap really quick our entire series, but just to start out, Joseph Smith is arrayed against people that don’t like him for political reasons, which are primarily people outside of Nauvoo, people that don’t like him for religious reasons, which are primarily people inside Nauvoo. The ringleader outside of Nauvoo is Thomas Sharp, who we’re going to spend more time talking about. He leads the Warsaw Militia that attacks the jail. The people inside Nauvoo are led by William Law: the brothers Law, the brothers Higbee, and the brothers Foster. 

Scott Woodward: And Charles Ivins. 

Casey Griffiths: And Charles Ivins. Let’s not forget him. He’s kind of the weird uncle of the Nauvoo Expositor experience. They publish the Nauvoo Expositor, and they do so in an attempt to remove Joseph Smith as president of the church. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: The Expositor contains a lot of inflammatory material, some of it true, some of it really exaggerated, some of it not true, but it does the job, I guess.

Scott Woodward: It was the spark that lit the fuse that led to the powder keg of the martyrdom, right? 

Casey Griffiths: That is correct, yeah. The Expositor is published on June 7, and twenty days later Joseph and Hyrum are killed in Carthage Jail. So Joseph Smith, acting as the city mayor, but in cooperation with the city council, decides that the Nauvoo Expositor is a public nuisance and needs to stop publication, so they destroy the copies of the Nauvoo Expositor, which by President Oaks’ legal analysis was legal. They also destroy the press, which by President Oaks analysis was probably legal, but we’re not sure.

Scott Woodward: Probably. 

Casey Griffiths: It causes conflict. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: People outside of Nauvoo see the destruction of the Expositor as signs that Joseph Smith is seeking dictatorial powers, and they start calling for him to come to Carthage. Now, at this point, we should say the fix was in. Joseph Smith agreed to submit to the law for the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. He goes to two justice of the peaces, one that’s a Latter-day Saint, one that is not a Latter-day Saint. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: He’s acquitted both times because he was acting in his capacity as mayor. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: And then that’s not good enough. They want Joseph to come to Carthage, even though Thomas Sharp is openly saying, if Joe leaves Nauvoo, he’s dead, you know, we just have to get him out of Fortress Nauvoo.

Scott Woodward: And it’s the governor, right? It’s Governor Ford who, like, really puts the pressure on and says you need to go to Carthage. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: So that the people know that you are law-abiding citizens. It’s the only way, Joseph. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. And Joseph is meanwhile making all these attempts to try and defuse the situation peacefully. He writes to the President of the United States, he writes several letters to Governor Ford, they publish the minutes of their city council meeting where they decided to destroy the Expositor so that everybody knows what their precise reasoning was. He attempts to leave Nauvoo but is brought back by people that accuse him of abandoning the saints, and finally he makes the fateful decision to go to Carthage. When he gets there, he submits before the officials of the law in Carthage and pays bail, but right as he’s getting ready to leave, he’s accused of an additional charge, which is treason, and only he and Hyrum Smith are accused of this. It’s not the Nauvoo City Council or him as mayor anymore, it’s him because he called out the Nauvoo Legion. He’s accused of that being an action against the state of Illinois. So there’s all these conversations with Thomas Ford that John Taylor recalls them having. Thomas Ford says that he’s going to go to Nauvoo, promises to take Joseph with him, but then doesn’t do that, and Joseph is left alone at the jail—well, not alone: his friends are with him, but Ford has disbanded the militia, meaning all the neutral troops that didn’t have a dog in the fight have gone home, and meanwhile, the Carthage Greys and the Warsaw Militia appear to have collaborated, colluded together. There’s an attack on the jail. Joseph and Hyrum are killed. Willard Richards survives without being seriously injured. John Taylor survives, but he is seriously injured. And that’s kind of where we left the story last week, was hearing Willard’s words and John’s words. And we did point out two things: one, Willard Richards’ account is written, within a couple weeks of the attack on Carthage Jail.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: John’s is written some time later. 

Scott Woodward: Like, twelve years later or something like that? 

Casey Griffiths: Twelve years later, after Thomas Ford has published his history of Illinois. 

Scott Woodward: And Wilford Woodruff encouraged John to get his record down, right? 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: With as much detail as he could possibly remember, and it’s, like, sixty-plus pages once he finally— 

Casey Griffiths: eah. 

Scott Woodward: —gets it all written. At the very beginning, he apologizes for leaving out certain details because time has passed, and then he proceeds to write sixty pages of memory of what happened. It’s pretty impressive. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. And, again, I don’t think John Taylor was claiming that every sentence in that was exactly what was said. 

Scott Woodward: No. 

Casey Griffiths: But I also think that the historical record seems to reveal that what John Taylor said in substance was pretty accurate—

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: —about the conversations in the jail. So that’s kind of where we left it last time, was that Joseph and Hyrum had been killed. Here’s Willard Richard’s account. Here’s John Taylor’s account. But there’s still so many questions. 

Scott Woodward: Yes. 

Casey Griffiths: And so that’s what we’re going to do today. We’re going to go through some controversies surrounding Carthage Jail: big ones, little ones, maybe even some that are just more, this is historically interesting but not super controversial, and I think we want to tackle the meatiest ones first, so we know we have time to kind of tackle them, so, Scott, what’s your biggest, meatiest question surrounding Carthage Jail? 

Scott Woodward: Carthage controversy number one.

Casey Griffiths: Okay, fire away. 

Scott Woodward: For me, it’s was Governor Thomas Ford complicit in the murders of Joseph and Hyrum? To me, that matters, Casey, that— 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: —this is the governor of a state who is potentially colluding, conspiring to kill a presidential candidate of the United States of America who happens to be someone with religious views that the governor disagrees with. In his own words, in a history that he writes, he calls Joseph, “The most successful imposter in modern times.” Like, he clearly has some religious bias against him. And so it’s, like, very suspicious. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: And so let’s just walk through some of the evidence for and against. I’m not going to pretend to try to be, like, super neutral on this, Casey. Like, I have to say that the evidence for is pretty intense. 

Casey Griffiths: Okay, okay, you’ve made up your mind. 

Scott Woodward: So you’ve got to temper me. You’ve got to temper me here. 

Casey Griffiths: Okay. Okay. 

Scott Woodward: So here we go: so the case for. 

Casey Griffiths: Okay. 

Scott Woodward: So I’ll list some of my reasons, and then we’re going to go over to John Taylor who has his—he has nine reasons he thinks the governor was complicit. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. John Taylor has made up his mind, too, pretty clearly, but . . . 

Scott Woodward: Yeah, and I think he’s a witness we should listen to. So here’s my list: number one, it was governor Ford who insisted that Joseph, Hyrum and the city council be tried for riot in Carthage—in Carthage—to prove, he said, to the general public that they were willing to be governed by law. Then, number two, so Joseph and Hyrum and the city council reluctantly go to Carthage only because Ford had, “pledged his faith as governor and the faith of the state of Illinois that they should be protected and that he would guarantee their perfect safety.” Not to say that someone that guarantees safety can always fulfill on their promise, but let’s watch how things continue to unfold. Third, it was only because of Ford’s insistence that Joseph and the Nauvoo folks bring no guards or weapons with them from Nauvoo, instead throwing themselves entirely under the immediate protection of Governor Ford, to trust his word and faith for their preservation, John Taylor says. After posting bail on the riot charge, Joseph and Hyrum are immediately arrested on charges of treason, as you just mentioned, due to them calling out the Nauvoo militia as things were getting heated after the destruction of the Expositor press. But do you know why they called out the militia? It’s because, wait for it, Governor Ford advised them to. Then, when John Taylor immediately appeals to Governor Ford to try to get them out of that absurd situation, that absurd accusation of treason, he replied to John Taylor, I can’t do anything. My hands are tied. I’m only the executive branch. This is a matter for the judicial branch to decide. Then he goes in with the prisoners and repeatedly promises to take Joseph and Hyrum with him if he, Ford, returns to Nauvoo, but then on the 27th of June he actually goes to Nauvoo without them. He disbands his militia forces, and he leaves Joseph and Hyrum under the “protection” of their sworn enemies, the Carthage Greys. John Taylor mentions this and says, there’s no way he did that accidentally. He either did it to put us in danger or at least to insult us, John says. Meanwhile, there’s the Dan Jones stories, right? Remember Dan Jones, who was also there up until the morning of, right? He said that when he was on his way over to visit with Governor Ford, he saw a big group of people, a big group of mobocrats, and he said he listened in, and here’s what he heard them saying. I’ll quote from Dan Jones: “I listened to what they had to say and beheld one of the mobocrats addressing the crowd, saying that they would make a sham discharge in obedience to orders, but that the governor and McDonald troops would leave for Nauvoo in the forenoon. Then we will return to town, boys, and tear that prison down, and have those two men’s lives before sundown, which declaration was not uttered in a whisper,” Dan says, “nor in a corner, but at the top of his voice, which echoed in the walls of the town hall and public square, and which was responded to by the loud three cheers of the crowd, and then another barrel of whiskey was called into their midst.” Dan says, “I went right away to the governor’s apartment in Hamilton’s hotel, where I found several officers with him in conversation. In their presence, I informed him of the threats made against the lives of the prisoners, offering to produce further proof if necessary, to which the governor responded, “You are unnecessarily alarmed for your friend’s safety, sir. The people are not that cruel.” Dan says he was irritated by that remark, and he urged the necessity of placing better men than professed assassins to guard Joseph and Hyrum, that they were American citizens, surrendered to his pledged honor, that they were also master masons, and as such, he said, “I demanded the protection of their lives. But this appeal failed to reach his adamantine heart, although his face appeared to be pale,” he said. I mean, that’s one instance. There’s another moment where the governor is disbanding the mob: Dan hears the mob yelling out really loud. I’ll quote Dan again: “Shouting loud in the governor’s hearing, they said that they were going only a short distance out of town and would return and hangle Joe and Hyrum as soon as the governor would be gone out of the way.” Dan says, “I begged to call the governor’s attention there and then to their own threats, which he could hardly fail to hear as well as myself.” Didn’t you just hear that, Governor? Did you hear what they were saying? “But the governor did not respond.” And then, finally, okay, the last piece. This is Dan Jones as well. He said, “After he was run out of town, Dan was, he makes it to Nauvoo, and then shortly after the governor arrives, Governor Ford goes over to Joseph Smith’s mansion house. And Dan says, “I had the untold disgrace of listening to Governor Ford in front of the prophet’s house and haranguing an innocent and inoffensive people with the insinuations applicable only to his own party. Then, in presence of the wives, children, and friends of his victims, he declared that, “a great crime had been done by placing the city under martial law, which was done only so far as self-preservation from mobs was demanding,” Dan inserts. And then the governor says, “and a severe atonement must be made, so prepare your minds for the emergency.” Whoa. So the governor comes to Joseph’s home in front of a crowd of Latter-day Saints and tells them that because Joseph placed the city under martial law, a severe atonement must be made. And then Dan says, “He and his escort were entertained at the mansion house.” They go into Joseph’s house to eat. “And while sitting at the prophet’s table, the hands of the assassins were dripping with his blood, about the same time Joseph was martyred over in Carthage. And Governor Ford might have said a severe atonement has been made, as doubtless the prophet and patriarch were weltering in their own atoning blood while their doom was being proclaimed to their families and friends.” So Dan Jones is convinced that the governor knew about this. Dan had tried to bring his attention to it twice, and then when he goes to Nauvoo, he sees the governor basically show his cards and announce that an atonement needs to be made, a severe atonement, because the prophet had declared martial law in Nauvoo. So there’s a case of my own kind of putting together those pieces with John Taylor and Dan Jones and kind of looking at the circumstantial evidence. 

Casey Griffiths: When I looked at the outline today, you had seven bullet points on why Thomas Ford was guilty, and I put in one as to why he’s not. But hear me out. Hear me out. I don’t want to defend Thomas Ford because he was either A, a collaborator in the martyrdom, or B, a really, really bad governor, but John Taylor does kind of make the argument that Governor Ford is complicit either directly or by neglect. And if I can, I want to make the case that Governor Ford just really misread the situation and might not have been complicit directly. Like, I’m just leaving the door open that Governor Ford wasn’t directly collaborating with the people that murdered Joseph Smith. And my reason is this: 

Scott Woodward: Yeah, let’s hear your case. 

Casey Griffiths: In our next episode, we’re going to talk about the trial of the murderers of Joseph and Hyrum, which happened about a year afterwards, and Governor Ford was very insistent that there be a trial, and it seems like if he had been in direct collusion with the people that had murdered Joseph Smith, he wouldn’t have been as insistent that there be a trial. Like, I think he would have been worried that something was going to come out that would implicate him in the murders as well, and so I’m leaning towards the Governor Ford wasn’t, like, in cahoots with the murderers, but he sort of caused them to be murdered through neglect. Is that okay if I say that? 

Scott Woodward: You can say whatever you want. 

Casey Griffiths: There’s plenty of reasons why Governor Ford wouldn’t have liked Joseph and Hyrum. Joseph is running for president. Illinois is a swing state. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: Joseph Smith is affecting Thomas Ford politically, but it also seems like Governor Ford doesn’t have as much skin in the game as the people in Hancock County that do directly murder Joseph and Hyrum, so I’m just saying I’m leaving the door open because I think John Taylor kind of does the same thing, too. 

Scott Woodward: And to your point, John Taylor does say, he says, “the strongest argument in the governor’s favor would be that he could not believe them capable of such atrocity,” meaning the Illinoisans, “and thinking that their talk and threatenings were a mere ebullition of feeling, a kind of braggadocio, and that there was enough of good moral feeling to control the more violent passions, he trusted to their faith.” So—and John says, “There is indeed a degree of plausibility about this.” 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. So my argument isn’t that Thomas Ford was complicit, it’s that he may have been sort of naive. Maybe he didn’t quite understand how hot the passions were that existed in Hancock County. Could he have done more to help Joseph and Hyrum? Absolutely. Is it clear that he favored the side of the non Latter-day Saint forces in Hancock County? Yes, he definitely did. But at the same time, too, I can’t say for sure that I think Thomas Ford was directly collaborating with the people that attacked the jail. Is that okay? 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. Well, and John Taylor does say, I’ll finish the sentence I just started. He said— 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: “There is indeed a degree of plausibility about this,” what you’re saying, Casey, “but when we put it in juxtaposition to the amount of evidence that he was in possession of, it weighs very little.” He says, “Why so oblivious to everything pertaining to the Mormons’ interests and so alive and interested about the mobocrats’?”

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: “At any rate, be this as it may, he stands responsible for their blood, and it is dripping on his garments.” Whoo. 

Casey Griffiths: Good writing. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: So let’s go through John Taylor’s reasons. John Taylor writes: he says, “There have been various opinions about the complicity of the governor in the murder, some supposing that he knew all about it and assisted or winked at its execution. It is somewhat difficult to form a correct opinion from the facts as presented, but is very certain that things looked more than suspicious against him.” So this is John Taylor being, I think, really generous to the governor. 

Scott Woodward: Pretty restrained, actually. Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. He’s being very restrained. But here’s John Taylor’s reasons. Okay. John Taylor says, “In the first place, he positively knew we had broken no law,” and I think that might be over-claiming a little bit. Governor Ford was obviously very upset when the Nauvoo Expositor Press was destroyed. But, I mean, he didn’t seem to do a ton of legal examination over whether or not what they had done was legal, just that he felt it was outrageous. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: Number two, John Taylor says, “He knew that the mob had not only passed inflammatory resolutions threatening extermination to the Mormons, but that they had actually assembled armed mobs and commenced hostilities against us,” and yes, Governor Ford did know that. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: I want to emphasize that extermination during that time usually had two meanings: one was to wipe out, the way we use it today, like I’m going to exterminate all of the bugs in my house, and the other is to forcibly remove. So, like, in the extermination order given in Missouri, Governor Boggs said the Mormons must be treated as enemies and be exterminated or driven from the state, which Alex Baugh and other historians would argue he wasn’t necessarily saying they needed to all be killed, he was saying they needed to be removed. They need to be driven from the state. And that may have been Governor Ford saying, well, that’s the best possible outcome is if they’re removed here. Okay. John Taylor number three, “He took those very mobs that had been arrayed against us and enrolled them as his troops, thus legalizing their acts.” That is true. 

Scott Woodward: True. 

Casey Griffiths: Governor Ford relied on the militia for security while he was in Carthage, and he was, in a sense, legitimizing the actions that they took. Now, he disbands the militia, which would have delegitimized the actions that they took. I want to emphasize that even though it was the Warsaw Militia that attacked the Carthage Jail, they weren’t acting as the Warsaw Militia. 

Scott Woodward: Right. 

Casey Griffiths: They were acting as a mob. They would call it an extrajudicial execution, like an execution that had to happen, but we don’t have time for the courts. It’s kind of a Star Wars argument, right? He’s too powerful for the courts. He’s got to go right now, sort of thing. John Taylor says, “Fourthly, he’d requested us to come to Carthage without arms, promising protection, and then refused to interfere in delivering us from prison, although Joseph and Hyrum were put there contrary to law.” Yes, that’s true. 

Scott Woodward: True. 

Casey Griffiths: But, I’m sorry I’m having to take Governor Ford’s side in all this: Governor Ford knew he was in a powder keg, right? And he may have thought, hey, it’s better to offend the Latter-day Saints than to offend these violent, murderous people, but that sort of undercuts the argument that he was too naive to know about what they were doing. 

Scott Woodward: Right. 

Casey Griffiths: Okay, fifthly, “Although he refused to interfere in our behalf, yet when Captain Robert F. Smith went to him and informed him that the persons refused to come out, he told them he had a command and knew what to do, thus sanctioning the use of force in the violation of law, would oppose to us, whereas he would not for us interpose his executive authority to free us from being incarcerated, contrary to the law, although he was fully informed of the facts of the case, as we kept him posted on the affairs all the time.”

Scott Woodward: Wasn’t there a moment where they asked the prisoners to come out? And they said, no, thanks. And then Robert F. Smith goes to the governor and the governor said, well, you’ve got a command. 

Casey Griffiths: You got a militia. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. You can get them out. 

Casey Griffiths: Use them. 

Scott Woodward: And so John Taylor’s saying, how come he couldn’t do that for us— 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: —when we’re clearly illegally jailed? Why couldn’t he use some of that executive power to protect us? 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: So kind of a one-sidedness coming from the governor here. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, and, again, I don’t think anybody’s arguing that Governor Ford didn’t favor the anti-Mormon side. It seems like in every case he chooses to inconvenience and put Latter-day Saints in danger to appease the—but he’s more Neville Chamberlain here, right? He’s trying to appease the mob, thinking if he gives them what they want, they’ll calm down and maybe he just hadn’t imagined that they were capable of murder, though that seems incredibly naive. 

Scott Woodward: Especially all that talk about atonement must be made. 

Casey Griffiths: But, I mean, Scott, he could have meant like atonement as in they have to go to jail or something like that. So I’m trying to be a nice guy here, okay. I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. 

Scott Woodward: You keep going, Casey. You’re doing good. 

Casey Griffiths: I’m digging a hole, aren’t I? All right. 

Scott Woodward: No, you’re doing great. 

Casey Griffiths: Okay. John Taylor says, “Sixthly, he left the prisoners in Carthage Jail contrary to his plighted faith. He disbanded the Nauvoo Legion, which had never violated law, and disarmed them, and had about his person the shape of militia, known mobocrats, and violators of law.” I don’t have any defense for this one. 

Scott Woodward: True. 

Casey Griffiths: He told Joseph and Hyrum that he would take them to Nauvoo. Joseph and Hyrum were very anxious and secured that promise, and then he just leaves them without giving them any warning. That’s indefensible. Best case scenario, he thought that they wouldn’t be killed in Carthage, but he did break a promise.

Scott Woodward: True. 

Casey Griffiths: “Seventhly, before he went, he dismissed all the troops that could be relied upon, as well as many of the mob, and left us in charge of the Carthage Greys, a company that he knew were mobocratic, our most bitter enemies who had passed resolutions to exterminate us.” Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: True. 

Casey Griffiths: And this one, the only defense for Thomas Ford here is that he was very naive, or that he really misread the situation, because having the Carthage Greys ensure Joseph and Hyrum’s safety was having the fox guard the hen house.

Scott Woodward: 100 percent. 

Casey Griffiths: The only justification I can give here is that he wasn’t local. He may not have understood how bad the situation was, but, again, through design or neglect, if you’re making the argument that Governor Ford’s complicit through neglect, you can assign some benign motives here. “Eighthly, he was informed of the intended murder, both before he left and while on the road by several different parties.” That is also true. Dan Jones tells him what he’s overheard. Thomas Ford’s own words are his defense here, where he told Dan Jones, the people aren’t that cruel. They’re not going to kill him. 

Scott Woodward: You’re overreacting. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. “Ninthly, when the cannon was fired in Carthage, signifying the deed was done, he immediately took up his line of march and fled. How did he know?” 

Scott Woodward: Okay, whoa, whoa, whoa. Pause. Pause. Tell us the backstory here. So what’s this cannon that’s fired at Carthage? Where is Governor Ford when that goes off? 

Casey Griffiths: So Governor Ford’s in Nauvoo when the martyrdom happens, and several people in Nauvoo had said that they had heard cannon fire coming from the distance of Carthage. Carthage is twenty-two miles away. 

Scott Woodward: From Nauvoo. 

Casey Griffiths: From Nauvoo, yeah. 

Scott Woodward: Okay. 

Casey Griffiths: And Governor Ford, it sounds like, was in the mansion house, which is the lower part of Nauvoo down by the river. I would abandon this as hyperbole if it hadn’t been for several other people that said the same thing, that they heard cannon fire and then the governor just gets the heck out of there. 

Scott Woodward: Which John Taylor thinks is some sort of a sign that was predetermined that the deed had been done, right? 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. But, okay, again, I don’t want to defend Governor Ford. 

Scott Woodward: You’re doing an okay job of it. 

Casey Griffiths: In his defense, if he knew they were going to murder Joseph and Hyrum, and was aware of this, why go to Nauvoo?

Scott Woodward: Can I be the accusatory side? 

Casey Griffiths: Go ahead. Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: I think it’s so that he can prove to the saints that he wasn’t there when Joseph died. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: He goes straight to Nauvoo, knowing the time when it was going to happen—before sundown is what they kept saying. Before sundown. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: So he makes sure he gets to Nauvoo before sundown, gives a speech during the time that it’s happening so that nobody in Nauvoo could say that the governor was there when it happened. I think he’s covering his own tracks is my counterpoint here. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: In fact, you should just keep reading John Taylor’s ninth point here. I think he says it. 

Casey Griffiths: Okay, okay, okay. John Taylor goes in this, “When the cannon was fired in Carthage signifying the deed was done, he immediately took up his line of march and fled. How did he know that this signal portends their death if he was not in on the secret? It may be said some of the party told him. How could he believe what the party said about the gun signal if he could not believe the testimony of several individuals who told him in positive terms about the contemplated murder? That’s a good argument. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: That’s a good argument. And John Taylor does accuse him of having several people who were out for Joseph Smith’s blood in the group that goes to Nauvoo with him. But, again, I’m just going to give him a slight slimmer of doubt to say, I don’t know 100 percent if he was in on the murders or if he was just thinking, I’ll just let this thing happen, or if he just totally misread the situation and made all these bad moves. He clearly favored one side over the other, but I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say he’s in on the whole thing. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if that turns out to be the case. 

Scott Woodward: Would you go so far as to say he was in the know, but he wasn’t pulling the strings, and that he let it happen? Would you be— 

Casey Griffiths: Maybe . . . 

Scott Woodward: —more comfortable saying it like that? 

Casey Griffiths: But I still think that he wouldn’t have insisted as stringently as he did on the people being brought to trial if they had information that would implicate him. Now, we’re going to spend a whole episode on the trial, and some very suspicious things happened during the trial—

Scott Woodward: Yes. 

Casey Griffiths: —that raised the question of what’s going on behind the scenes, but I still think that the fact that Governor Ford insisted on a trial and spoke very ardently about it in public seems to indicate that he wasn’t worried about information about him coming out in the trial. Does that make sense? 

Scott Woodward: Yes, from the prosecutor’s side. Wouldn’t that be the perfect thing to do to make sure that he doesn’t get implicated is insist that there’s a trial, that justice is done? Because he has a great alibi. I was in Nauvoo. I was in Nauvoo when this happened. I can’t— 

Casey Griffiths: No, because during the trial, Thomas Sharp or somebody else is going to come forward and say, hey, the governor was in on this whole thing and throw the governor to the wolves so that they can save themselves, essentially. So I just think that’s enough to cast reasonable doubt, although, again, I am totally sympathetic to John Taylor and Dan Jones and all those people. I think John Taylor himself leaves the door open to say the governor might have just been too dumb to realize what was going on. Is that fair? 

Scott Woodward: Yeah, here’s, so here’s John Taylor’s closing remarks: he says, “If it had not been for his promises of protection, they would have protected themselves. It was plighted faith that led them to the slaughter, and to make the best of it, it was a breach of that faith and a non-fulfillment of that promise after repeated warnings that led to their death.” And then he concludes, “Having said so much, I must leave the governor with my readers and with his god. Justice, I conceive demanded this much, and truth could not be told with less. As I have said before, my opinion is that the governor would not have planned this murder, but he had not sufficient energy to resist popular opinion, even if that opinion led to blood and death.” So I think John Taylor is being very kind and restrained here, and yet he gives nine points as to why he thinks the governor knew about it and let it happen anyways, and I think that’s kind of where I come down, is the governor knew about this, he heard the planning, he heard the oaths, and he—but he did kind of play a little bit of a part by insisting that they come to Carthage and then withdrawing his protection. Like— 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: There was his action. I do have to say that. He did take some decisive action there by insisting that he come to Carthage, withdrawing his protection and leaving them to the Carthage Grays, going to Nauvoo. Like, that part is . . . that one’s hard to say that he just kind of let it happen, but other than that, I’m okay with that, but he seems to have a smoking gun. 

Casey Griffiths: Let’s just agree to agree that he did a bad job and leave it at that. 

Scott Woodward: He did a bad job. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: Let’s end with this: Governor Ford’s own history in 1854 that gets published called the history of Illinois. He said, “Sharon, Palmyra, Manchester, Kirtland, Far West, Adam-ondi-ahman, Ramus, Nauvoo, and the Carthage Jail may become holy and venerable names, places of classic interest, like Jerusalem, the Garden of Gethsemane, the Mount of Olives and Mount of Calvary to the Christian, and Mecca and Medina to the Turk. And in that event,” he says, “the author of this history,” speaking of himself, “feels degraded by the reflection that the humble governor of an obscure state, who would otherwise be forgotten in a few years, stands a fair chance, like Pilate and Herod, by their official connection with the true religion, of being dragged down to posterity with an immortal name hitched on the memory of a miserable imposter.” That’s what he thinks of Joseph Smith still in 1854: miserable imposter. “There may be those whose ambition would lead them to desire an immortal name in history. Even in those humbling terms, I am not one of that number,” he says. So he realizes he’s going to become the Pontius Pilate of this story.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. He was right about that. 

Scott Woodward: He’s right. 

Casey Griffiths: We can both agree, I think. 

Scott Woodward: He was right about that. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. Okay. Controversy two. Joseph Smith fired back at the mob. 

Scott Woodward: Okay. 

Casey Griffiths: Did he kill anyone when he fired back? Now, this is less of a controversy because if you were listening to our episode last week, both John Taylor and Willard Richards say he fired back. They weren’t trying to cover it up at all.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: But sometimes in tellings of the martyrdom, this is sort of glossed over because people worry about the implications of Joseph Smith not being a martyr if he fired back. And we ourselves on this podcast have sort of created this narrative that Joseph Smith was trying to peacefully resolve the situation.

Scott Woodward: Yes. 

Casey Griffiths: This appears to be the one act of violence that he incurs as part of the martyrdom. And nobody, nobody on either side of this controversy is saying Joseph did not fire back. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: The gun that Joseph Smith used in Carthage Jail is on display in the Church History Museum. You can come in and see it. Now, did he hit anybody? We think so. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: But the evidence here is shaky. For instance, this is from President Oaks’ and Marvin Hill’s book, Carthage Conspiracy. Three men, John Wills, William Voris, and we don’t know his first name, but probably William Gallagher were indicted in the murder of Joseph and Hyrum because they were wounded. So he hit at least three people. However, these three fled the county and were never involved in the trial. They get out of town because they know that they’re going to be in trouble. So they were also the three who were accused of firing the shots that actually killed Joseph Smith. And so we don’t know very much about any of these guys. John Hay, who later becomes an influential figure in Abraham Lincoln’s administration, who happened to live in Carthage when this was happening, described them. He said one of them was an Irishman who joined the mob from his congenital love of the brawl, that Gallagher was a young man from Mississippi who was shot in the face, but apparently not fatally. Another source said that Wills, this is John Wills, was a Mormon elder who’d left the church. John Hay described William Voris, and he pronounces it Vore-eez, as a half grown hobbledy-hoy from Bear Creek, whom Joseph shot in the shoulder.

Scott Woodward: Hobbledy-hoy. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. And one statement said that the citizens of Green Plains, that’s a town nearby, were said to have given Gallagher and Voris new suits of clothes for their parts in the killing. So, yeah, Joseph Smith fired back. 

Scott Woodward: And in Willard Richards’ account and John Taylor’s account, they both mention this explicitly, and John Taylor even says, with maybe some degree of uncertainty, he said, “I understood that two or three were wounded by Joseph’s discharges—” 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: “—two of whom, I am informed, died.” 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: Now, where’s that coming from? What’s his evidence? We’re not sure, but you’re going to kind of go through this with us. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, and again, John Taylor is writing that a decade after the fact. The trial’s over. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: These three people have kind of gone to the wind, and even today, when Oaks and Hill were writing their book, it was hard to find information about these three guys. But again, John Taylor and Willard Richards both are open and direct in saying that Joseph Smith fired back.

Scott Woodward: Right after Hyrum Smith got hit in the face, right? 

Casey Griffiths: That’s the point I was about to make, is Joseph does not fire back until they’ve killed Hyrum. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: In fact, this is the way John Taylor describes it: He says that Hyrum is hit, and then John says, “I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum and, leaning over him, exclaimed, ‘Oh, my poor, dear brother Hyrum.’” So the situation is Joseph leaves the door and goes over to where Hyrum is to see if he’s okay and is devastated. Now he knows that the mob isn’t coming to tar and feather them. They’re not coming to publicly humiliate them. They are coming to murder them. And this is where John Taylor adds this: he said, “He,” meaning Joseph, “instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door and, pulling the six-shooter left by brother Wheelock,” because Cyrus Wheelock smuggles this gun into the jail, “opened the door slightly and snapped the pistol six successive times. Only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. And so John Taylor is saying Joseph Smith didn’t fire back until Hyrum was killed, and then at that point he fired back. 

Scott Woodward: Yes. 

Casey Griffiths: So Joseph doesn’t fire until he knows they have intent to kill, and let’s just break this down logically: like, if you’re in a confined space and a group of over 100 people are attacking you, and they’ve killed one member of your party, and you have a gun, it is morally acceptable to fire back.

Scott Woodward: We call that self defense. 

Casey Griffiths: Self defense, right? 

Scott Woodward: Yes. 

Casey Griffiths: And you could make a case that Joseph Smith’s actions saved the lives of John Taylor and Willard Richards. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: Because the men attacking the jail don’t come in the room. Like, they were thinking they didn’t have anything to defend themselves with. After Joseph fires back, they don’t charge into the room and finish everybody else off: They stay at the door, and they fire from there because they don’t know if they’ll get shot back at them. 

Scott Woodward: I think that’s actually a really cool argument to just think about that, right? That the fact that he fired at them keeps them at bay from outside the room. It keeps them in the door jamb. They don’t come into the room, which they totally could have, and finish them off, like you said. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: And the fact that he created just enough doubt in the minds of the mob that they could be armed actually does end up saving the lives of Willard and John. I think that case could be made. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: That’s really interesting. 

Casey Griffiths: So John Hay, again, an influential official in the Lincoln administration, writes this assessment: Joe Smith died bravely. He stood by the jamb of the door and fired four shots. That’s wrong. John Taylor says he only fired three. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: But John Hay says, “Bringing his man down every time.” So does this disqualify him as a martyr the fact that he’s firing back? I’ve even heard it rewritten to say Joseph Smith died in a gunfight in Carthage. It’s not a gunfight— 

Scott Woodward: It’s not a gunfight. 

Casey Griffiths: —if there’s 150 armed people versus one person that has a pistol. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: And just a couple other things, too, that I can mention really fast. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah, please. 

Casey Griffiths: There are three pistols that claim to be the pepperbox pistol that Joseph Smith used in Carthage Jail.

Scott Woodward: Okay. 

Casey Griffiths: One of them is called the dragoon pistol, and it was the one that was on display in the Church History Museum until 2015, and it’s a big pistol. In 2015, when they refreshed the Church History Museum and they redesigned it, they took the gun out, and they looked at it, and they found out that it had a firing mechanism that was patented in 1845. 

Scott Woodward: That makes it less plausible that it was the gun. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. I’m no detective, but that’s probably not it. 

Scott Woodward: Probably not it. 

Casey Griffiths: They did the same thing to one of the other pistols. It also had a firing mechanism patented in 1845. The third pistol, which, by process of elimination, has to be the one that was used, fires a 32-caliber bullet, which would have been enough to cause a person to have pause, fall back. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: It also—if you see it in the Church History Museum, one of the things that’s really striking is how small it is. It easily would have fit into a person’s pants pockets without any distortion, without a person walking up and saying, “It looks like you have a gun in your pocket.” And, again, all the histories, including John Taylor and Willard Richards, are both open in saying Cyrus Wheelock brought pistols into the jail because he was worried they might need to defend themselves, and they did. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah, in fact, John Taylor’s account says “Cyrus Wheelock came to see us, and when he was leaving, he drew a small pistol—” 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: “—a six-shooter from his pocket.” So, yeah, he mentions the size as being small. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: Which corroborates that third choice as the legitimate one. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. And, again, I don’t think this disqualifies Joseph Smith as a martyr, you know?

Scott Woodward: Yeah, there’s kind of two questions we’re asking here, right? So the first question is, did Joseph kill anyone when he fired back at the attackers? Just, like, a historical question. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. It seems like probably not would be the better answer there too, because all three—he fires three shots. Three men in the indictment, which comes down a year later, are accused of being at the jail because each one of them was shot. 

Scott Woodward: Okay. 

Casey Griffiths: One of them, according to the best records we have, was hit in the arm, one was hit in the shoulder, one was hit in the face. 

Scott Woodward: Okay. 

Casey Griffiths: Because all three were indicted, it doesn’t seem like it was fatal to any of them. 

Scott Woodward: Okay. 

Casey Griffiths: But, again, the men abscond, and they kind of disappear from the historical record at that point, so we don’t have direct information from them about what happened.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. And then the second question is, did the fact that Joseph fired back at the mob take away his status somehow as a martyr for his religion? And that’s what you were getting into here. So continue on with that line of thought. What do you think, Casey? 

Casey Griffiths: Well, I just think that, you know, prophets in all ages have acted at times to defend themselves, so— 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: —did Alma the Younger lose his prophetic status because he fought Amlici? In the Bible, did Moses lose his prophetic status because he engaged in armed conflict with people? No. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. Well, I mean, but the question isn’t do they lose their status as prophet? The question is, can he retain the status as a martyr, right?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. And my understanding is the dictionary definition of a martyr is someone who dies for what they believe in. It doesn’t have anything to do with, did they fight back? And in this case, I mean, okay, to-may-to, to-mah-to, you know? Joseph Smith fired back, but against overwhelming odds and in self defense after it was clear that the mob was out for blood, that they were going to try to not only kill him, but kill everybody in that room, and you can make the case that Joseph saved the lives of Willard Richards and John Taylor, so . . . 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. I would add that the word martyr itself comes from the Greek word martus, which means witness. That’s all it means. It means witness. So the basic idea of a martyr is that of one who is killed for the witness he bears. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: Martyr doesn’t mean one who’s killed without resistance. That’s not what it means, right? It means one who is killed for the witness he bears. And that fits Joseph Smith perfectly. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: And so to try to take away the status of martyr from Joseph just seems like another insult being hurled his direction that is neither here nor there at the end of the day.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: He died for the witness that he bore. That much is certain. 

Casey Griffiths: That’s true. 

Scott Woodward: All right, so lightning round. You ready? 

Casey Griffiths: All right. 

Scott Woodward: All right, so question number one: did the men in Carthage Jail drink wine, Casey? 

Casey Griffiths: Yes, they did. This is mentioned in John Taylor’s account. Again, it’s one of those things that they don’t try to cover up. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: John also went out of his way to say they did not drink wine as part of a sacrament service. I want to emphasize, at the time, the Word of Wisdom was not considered a commandment, but good counsel. On other occasions Joseph Smith and his companions did drink wine. The most notable is during their escape from Liberty Jail. They come across a farmer, he offers them some wine, but, yes, they did drink wine in Carthage Jail. No, they would not have seen it the way we see consumption of wine in the church today. That’s something that gradually over time became more and more of a commandment in the church, I guess is the word I’d use there. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: Okay. Question two. Are you ready? 

Scott Woodward: Okay. Lay it on me. 

Casey Griffiths: Were the four men in Carthage Jail not wearing their temple garments?

Scott Woodward: Oh, yeah. Three of them were not wearing garments. One was. So Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and John Taylor removed their garments, but Willard Richards retained his garment. 

Casey Griffiths: Okay. 

Scott Woodward: That’s the quick, short answer. Willard Richards continued to wear his garments. The more interesting question would be why, right? Why did they take off their garments? And that’s led to some speculation. W. W. Phelps said because it was hot, which does not explain why the 300-pound man does not remove his garments, right? He would be the first candidate to take his garments off if heat was the problem. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: But a few years later, Oliver B. Huntington weighed in on this. He said that he had heard from those who had talked to John Taylor, so he’s, like, a thirdhand account here. 

Casey Griffiths: Right. 

Scott Woodward: He said that Elder John Morgan had heard it from President Taylor and Sister Lucy B. Young had heard it from John Taylor, and this is what he said they heard: he said, “The Prophet Joseph pulled off his garments just before starting to Carthage to be slain, and he advised Hiram and John Taylor to do the same, which they did. And Brother Taylor told Brother Willard Richards what they had done and advised him to take off his also, but Brother Richards said that he would not take his off and did not. Joseph said before taking his garments off that he was going to be killed, was going as a lamb to the slaughter, and he did not want his garments to be exposed to the sneers and jeers of his enemies.” So that’s an interesting perspective, right? That Joseph felt like he was going to be killed for sure, and he did not want his garments to be exposed to the sneers and jeers of his enemies. And so that’s one explanation as to why the garments were removed. 

Casey Griffiths: And I think there’s kind of a folk belief that’s grown up in the church, encouraged by some leaders of the church, too, that Willard Richards was the only one that was uninjured because he was wearing his garments.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: But that’s speculative, right? 

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: We don’t—we don’t know. I don’t know if we can make a judgment call there one way or the other. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. Some church leaders certainly believe that, and it was perpetuated for a while that the reason Willard Richards didn’t die is because he was wearing his garments. But I think that’s fair to say that that is speculative and not a causal relationship. Is that fair? 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, that’s fair. That’s fair. 

Scott Woodward: Okay. 

Casey Griffiths: So we just don’t know. We don’t have enough information on that one. 

Scott Woodward: Okay. 

Casey Griffiths: Next question. 

Scott Woodward: Casey, how was John Taylor’s pocketwatch damaged in the attack? 

Casey Griffiths: Ooh, this is a juicy one. So this comes up a lot, and there’s strong feelings about it. John Taylor himself said that he ran to the window, he was hit, he fell, and then he writes this: “I felt myself falling outside the window, but immediately fell inside from some, at that time, unknown cause.” He lands on the floor. He survives, even though he’s wounded badly, and a few days later, they bring him his watch. He actually says this: “My family were not a little startled to find that my watch had been struck with a ball. I sent for my vest. And upon examination, it was found that there was a cut as if with a knife in the vest, which contained my watch. In the pocket, the fragments of glass were literally ground to powder.” So that’s what his watch looks like when he gets it back, and then he surmises, “It then occurred to me that a ball had struck me at the time I felt myself falling outside the window, and that it was this force that threw me inside. I never could account for it until then, but here the thing was fully elucidated. I was indeed falling out when some villain aimed at my heart. The ball struck my watch and forced me back. If I had fallen out, I should assuredly have been killed. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah, so what’s controversial here? He says, they shot my watch, pushed me back in. So why are we even talking about this, Casey? Why is this controversial?

Casey Griffiths: Well, because researchers did a kind of Mormon myth busters sort of thing, and, again, a myth implies someone’s not telling the truth. John Taylor himself puts together the puzzle for us and says, I found my watch. I figured this must be what happened. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: But they took a similar watch and fired a similar caliber bullet at it, and it just blew up.

Scott Woodward: Obliterated the watch. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. And John Taylor’s watch, which is also on display in the Church History Museum, did not blow up. And so for about twenty years—this research was published in the ’90s, and for the next twenty years or so—the theory was that John Taylor wasn’t lying, but he was mistaken: that when he was running towards the window, he was hit, and he fell, and he hit into the windowsill so hard that it shattered his watch and stopped it at the time of the martyrdom. 

Scott Woodward: Oh, so the counter theory is he falls and his pocket watch hits, like, the windowsill, BAM.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: And that breaks it. Okay. 

Casey Griffiths: Nobody’s saying John Taylor was lying here, just that he may have been mistaken about the cause. 

Scott Woodward: Listen, there was a lot going on at that time, okay? 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: He’s getting shot. Pieces of his hip is blown off, like— 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: —give the man some slack. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. You can blame the guy if he made an honest mistake. That research was published in the ’90s, and then it was published in Glenn Leonard’s book on Nauvoo and kind of became the accepted prevailing theory. 

Scott Woodward: The windowsill theory? 

Casey Griffiths: The windowsill theory. But, plot twist: last year, this was 2023, at the Mormon History Association, several researchers from the Church History Library said that they’d gone back and taken a second look at the watch, and their conclusion was that it was hit by some kind of projectile, but probably not a direct hit. They said the damage to the watch was consistent with something hitting it traveling about 200 miles per hour. And don’t ask me how they came up with that figure. 

Scott Woodward: Okay. 

Casey Griffiths: That their theory now is that it was hit, but that it may have been a ricochet or a bullet that deflected or something like that and hit the watch. And that comes together because John Taylor, again, says he was in the window for a second and then something pushed him back in— 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: —which kind of runs contrary to that he fell and hit the window so hard that he broke his watch, which means he wouldn’t have been in the window and that something ricocheted and hit the watch, and he fell down. The bottom line here is that John Taylor’s survival was miraculous, and whatever happened to his watch, we’re glad we have it, but it appears that the prevailing theory right now is that something did hit the watch, and it wasn’t going fast enough to destroy the watch, but it would have been going fast enough to really kind of force John Taylor back into the room and cause him to do exactly what he said happened, so that one’s still out to the jury, but that does seem to have kind of tilted again towards John Taylor relating the facts as he knew them and miraculously surviving. Whatever happened, John Taylor was miraculously preserved. There’s no way to get around that. He probably wanted to be miraculously preserved the way Willard Richards was without getting shot several times. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: But he lived. He lived. That’s the important thing. 

Scott Woodward: Okay, so the latest theory is the ricochet theory. 

Casey Griffiths: The ricochet theory. 

Scott Woodward: I like it. 

Casey Griffiths: Next controversy. Joseph Smith’s last words: were they a Masonic cry for help? 

Scott Woodward: Ooh. His last words were, “O, Lord, my God.” 

Casey Griffiths: “O Lord, my God,” yes. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah, that’s a great question, and it seems like those who were closest to the experience said, yes, it was. Maybe a little background is helpful here. So there is among the brethren of Freemasonry, what’s called a grand hailing sign of distress. So the full statement is, “O Lord, my God, is there no help for the widow’s son? And according to Masonic code, any Mason who hears another Mason utter that grand hailing sign must come to his aid, and so most adult men in Hancock County, Casey, were Masons, and there were Masons in the mob, no doubt, that attacked the jail. 

Casey Griffiths: Mm-hmm. 

Scott Woodward: And so if Joseph was attempting to give the grand hailing sign, then they would have been obligated to stop their attack and defend Joseph and Hyrum and John and Willard. Now, John Taylor himself came to the same conclusion. He said—and by the way, John Taylor was a Mason. He said, “These two innocent men, Joseph and Hyrum, were confined in jail for a supposed crime, had the pledged faith of the state of Illinois by Governor Ford for their protection, and were then shot to death while with uplifted hands they gave such signs of distress as would have commanded the interposition and benevolence of savages or pagans. They were both masons in good standing,” he says. “Ye brethren of the mystic tie,” he exclaims, meaning Masonry, “what think ye? Where is our good master Joseph and Hyrum? Is there a pagan, heathen, or savage nation on the globe that would not be moved on this great occasion, as the trees of the forest are moved by a mighty wind? Joseph’s last exclamation was, ‘O Lord, my God.’” So John Taylor seems pretty worked up that the Masons should have done something, even if you’re not a Christian, if you were a Mason, a savage, a pagan, any kind of a Mason, you should have done something there. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: And they did not. Heber C. Kimball also says, “Masons, it is said, were even among the mob that murdered Joseph and Hyrum in Carthage Jail. Joseph, leaping the fatal window, gave the Masonic signal of distress. The answer was the roar of his murderer’s muskets.” In other words, these are very, very bad Masons who continue to fire when somebody is giving the Masonic signal of distress. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: So, yes, it does appear very clear that Joseph’s last words were believed, at least by many people that were close to Joseph, to be the Masonic cry of distress. Kind of a last-ditch effort to call for help. Okay, next question. Casey, this isn’t really controversial, but it’s kind of interesting. Did the song, “A Poor, Wayfaring Man of Grief” sound different than the way we sing it today when John Taylor sang it in Carthage Jail? 

Casey Griffiths: It appears so, yes. Not controversial, but interesting. 

Scott Woodward: Interesting. 

Casey Griffiths: There was a church history symposium about John Taylor a few years ago, and Jeffrey N. Walker did some research to find the original tune of “A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief,” which John Taylor mentions in his history. Jeffrey Walker found that the original tune was a little bit faster. It’s a tune called “Dwayne Street.” 

Scott Woodward: Do you want to maybe sing it for us? 

Casey Griffiths: I’m not a singer, so this might be really bad.

Scott Woodward: Ladies and gentlemen, Casey Griffiths. 

Casey Griffiths: Okay. Okay. So the tune would have sounded a little bit like this:. Are you ready? 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: “A poor, wayfaring man of grief hath often crossed me on my way, who sued so humbly for relief that I could never answer nay. I had not power to ask his name, where to he went or whence he came, yet there was something in his eye, that won my love, I knew not why.”

Scott Woodward: Woo! Nicely done. Nicely done, Casey. 

Casey Griffiths: So . . . 

Scott Woodward: Sounds like an Irish jig. 

Casey Griffiths: It sounds like an Irish drinking song, right? Like, I was ready to go, “a-Heidi, Heidi, Heidi, Heidi, Heidi, Heidi, Hi.” I’ve always thought, why did they sing “A Poor, Wayfaring Man of Grief” if they were depressed, because our version is so slow and sad, and it turns out that the song would have been cheerier. It had pathos in that it was about helping the Savior, but the reason why we sing it slowly, it turns out, that Jeffrey Walker found out, was because John Taylor asked for it to be slowed down. 

Scott Woodward: Oh. Does that suggest that he sang it more slowly in Carthage, perhaps? 

Casey Griffiths: It might be, or it might be that the song had changed in his memory to be something very, very sad. So it seems like when it was published a few years later in the church hymnal, it was more elegant. It was more formal. It was more of a memorial to what happened in Carthage Jail. So why is our version much slower, much more thoughtful, much more kind of sad? Because John Taylor made it that way. 

Scott Woodward: Because John Taylor.

Casey Griffiths: And that fits, but it is nice to know that it was kind of a cheery song, and I think, you know, somebody out there ought to do a good cover of “Dwayne Street” with the original—I think on the Joseph Smith Papers podcast, actually, they have someone sing it who’s a better singer than me, but I promised several friends who listen to the podcast that I would sing it, so . . . 

Scott Woodward: Good job. Well done. 

Casey Griffiths: So let’s see. Next one: the death masks of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. 

Scott Woodward: Yes. 

Casey Griffiths: Are they an accurate representation of Joseph and Hyrum? 

Scott Woodward: That’s a good question. So death masks was a thing that they did back then in order to preserve the likeness of those who had died, and so they were typically formed with a certain plaster, a certain type of plaster— 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: —shortly after the death of a loved one, right? This is before we have a lot of photography, that kind of thing. So what’s controversial about this, then, Casey? 

Casey Griffiths: What’s controversial about this is are they accurate? Because— 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: —there’s been a photograph of Joseph Smith published recently, but that’s a whole other episode. 

Scott Woodward: Right. 

Casey Griffiths: Before that, the death masks were thought to be the most accurate representation. Now, Willard Richards does say that the attacks on the jail happened just after 5 p. m. He spends the night making sure John Taylor’s okay. 

Scott Woodward: Right. 

Casey Griffiths: But the next morning, he does take the bodies, and he goes to Nauvoo and he gets there in the early afternoon. According to all accounts, we have a man named George Cannon. This is not the George Q. Cannon most people are familiar with. 

Scott Woodward: Right. 

Casey Griffiths: But he makes plaster casts of their faces before they were interred. So Ephraim Hatch, who did a lot of research on the masks, concluded that they could be accurate if ice or other means were used to cool and preserve the decay in the bodies. He also said that rigor mortis can delay bacterial growth in bodies and is most pronounced in healthy individuals who die suddenly, such as Joseph and Hyrum did. And we do know that ice was available in Carthage because when John Taylor comes back from Carthage a few days later, he says, “My wife rode with me, applying ice and ice water to my wounds.” So it’s very likely that they would have tried to preserve the bodies so that they could make the death masks and that they were done very quickly, within a day or so of the murder. So they could be accurate. 

Scott Woodward: So that would take care of the swelling piece on the face as well as delaying the decay.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: Okay. So ice is a key piece here. Okay. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. Now, the other thing is, though, the death masks that are currently on display in the Church History Museum and the ones that almost all the copies have been made from, do have kind of a strange provenance. So we know they’re made in 1844, but they disappear until 1849.

Scott Woodward: Oh. 

Casey Griffiths: A guy named, who we only have information on now, Brother Rowley, has the death masks, and he has them until 1849 when Philo Dibble, who’s kind of an enthusiast for church history, takes the death masks and start to sort of take them around as a traveling exhibit. It’s clear, looking at the death masks, too, that somebody may have dropped them. Like, it seems like Hiram’s chin has been reconstructed, and Joseph’s chin may have also, which suggests that they might not be a totally accurate representation of what they look like.

Scott Woodward: Like somebody, like, dropped the death mask and, like, chipped the chins off, and so they had to be reconstructed? 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: Okay. 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, and, again, another thing is is on the opposite side of the bodies being well-preserved is that this happens in late summer. It’s very hot by all accounts, and that’s working against them. In fact, I’m going to give everybody a little bit of warning, but they put the bodies on display in the mansion house, and the descriptions of what it was like to go past the bodies— 

Scott Woodward: Ooh. Pretty gruesome. 

Casey Griffiths: —are pretty gruesome. So just prepare yourself. One account said, “The scene around the bodies of the dead men was too horrible to witness. Hyrum was shot in the brain and bled none, but by noon his body was so swollen that no one could recognize it. Joseph’s blood continued to pour out of his wounds, which had been filled with cotton. The muscles relaxed, and the gory fluid trickled down on the floor and formed puddles across the room. Tar, vinegar, and sugar were kept burning on the stove to enable persons to stay in the apartment. 

Scott Woodward: Meaning what? Meaning the smell? Why tar, vinegar, and sugar? For smell? 

Casey Griffiths: Apparently the smell. Like, the smell was very prominent, and they burned that so that people that were passing through or the people that were staying and overseeing the viewing could stand to be in the room. So on the other side, it does appear like the circumstances would have led themselves to a quick decomposition, which would say the masks aren’t very accurate, but there’s another side too to say if they had used ice, which they probably did, ice was available in Carthage, and they got the masks done fast enough, they would be an accurate representation. That, combined with the kind of questionable provenance of the ,masks means that we shouldn’t see them as identical to what Joseph and Hyrum look like, but they probably are in a fair likeness, excepting that, you know, you take all that into account. So the death masks. 

Scott Woodward: The death masks. Okay. Last question. 

Casey Griffiths: Okay. 

Scott Woodward: Who wrote Doctrine and Covenants 135, Casey? 

Casey Griffiths: Ooh, this is a good one. Okay, so Doctrine and Covenants 135 is—it’s 135 in our Doctrine and Covenants. It appears it was inserted into—they were producing a new edition of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1844 when Joseph and Hyrum were killed. In fact, if I’m remembering correctly, the Doctrine and Covenants comes out in October, and it kind of has this insert. I’ve actually seen an 1844 Doctrine and Covenants. The font size is different. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: And it appears that they printed it and inserted it while they were preparing the books. That’s section 135. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: Now, you and I have always assumed that John Taylor wrote it, and that’s because— 

Scott Woodward: Growing up, that’s what we thought.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, in the 1981 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, it said directly, this was written by John Taylor. However, an intrepid graduate student named Michael Burnham—I was on his committee—he and I actually noticed that when the 2013 edition came out, it didn’t say John Taylor wrote it. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: He basically decided to make this his master’s thesis to find out, you know, why they removed that. Well, here’s what he found out: There is no source in John Taylor’s lifetime where he claimed he was the author of section 135. 

Scott Woodward: Okay. 

Casey Griffiths: Does the literary style match John Taylor? It does, quite a bit, but John Taylor never claims that it’s there. No edition of the Doctrine and Covenants other than the 1981 edition, has attributed it to John Taylor as the author, and the most likely theory is that John Taylor was an author, but since there were no authors listed and John Taylor was so badly wounded in the attack on the jail, that he may have written it in collaboration with other people like Willard Richards or John Taylor. 

Scott Woodward: Can I make a quick case for that? 

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. 

Scott Woodward: In John Taylor’s own account, he says that the last words he heard Joseph Smith say were, “That’s right, Brother Taylor, keep it up as long as you can,” when John was whacking the rifles with the rascal beater stick and making them shoot up into the ceiling, right? He says, those were the last words I heard Joseph say. But in section 135, it says that Joseph’s last words were, “O Lord, my God.” So John Taylor didn’t hear Joseph say, “O Lord, my God.” There’s only one other person who could know what Joseph said, and obviously that’s Willard Richards. And that does not actually come up in Willard Richards’ account, that Joseph’s last words were, “O Lord, my God.” So it seems very plausible that John Taylor and Willard Richards were talking together: what do you remember? Here’s what I remember. And then they either collaborated on the writing itself or one of them was lead author and put it together, but that doesn’t seem like a very far stretch, to say that both John and Willard were in on the writing of 135, right? 

Casey Griffiths: No. And here’s what Michael Burnham wrote. We’re going to completely pass the buck for this theory on to him. Michael Burnham, this promising graduate student, wrote, “A handful of scholars have assessed the viability of Taylor’s authorship of section 135 in recent years. Most have reached the conclusion that Taylor was involved in its creation, but was probably not the sole author. This is most easily derived from the voice of the document itself, which speaks in a plural, we voice. The text also refers to Taylor and Willard Richards in the third person throughout. Furthermore, current scholarship suggests the tradition attributing exclusive authorship of section 135 to John Taylor arose from statements made by Heber J. Grant and Janne Sjödahl in the early 20th century.” Janne Sjödahl wrote the earliest commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants that we have. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. 

Casey Griffiths: And what Michael found, basically, was that John Taylor never claimed he wrote it, and nobody did until Heber J. Grant and Janne Sjödahl started repeating that, and it kind of picked up steam until it was included in the 1981 Doctrine and Covenants, but by 2013, we had backed off a little bit on it. Point is, John Taylor was involved, but John Taylor never claimed to be the sole author, so it’s safest to say— 

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: —that the text was probably a collaboration between several people. 

Scott Woodward: Yeah. And that makes total sense. 

Casey Griffiths: Makes total sense. 

Scott Woodward: Well, this has been fun. Appreciate it, Casey. Thank you for your good scholarship and for all you’re doing to help bring all these sources together. You did the lion’s share of this outline for us today, so appreciate you.

Casey Griffiths: Oh, thank you. 

Scott Woodward: Next week, the fate of the persecutors of Joseph Smith. 

Casey Griffiths: Mm-hmm. That’s something to look forward to, so I’ll see you next time, Scott. 

Scott Woodward: We’ll see you next time. Thanks, Casey. Thank you for listening to this episode of Church History Matters. Next week, Casey and I look into what we know about the fate of those involved in the murders of the Prophet Joseph and his brother Hyrum. Were they ever brought to justice? Is there any truth to the rumors that they died in unnaturally gruesome ways? What do we actually know about their stories? If you’re enjoying Church History Matters, we’d appreciate it if you could take a moment to subscribe, rate, review, and comment on the podcast. That makes us easier to find. Also, we’d love to hear your suggestions for future series on this podcast. If there’s a church history topic you think would be worth exploring for multiple episodes, send us your idea to podcasts@scripturecentral.org. We’ll consider all suggestions. Today’s episode was produced by Scott Woodward and edited by Nick Galieti and Scott Woodward, with show notes and transcript by Gabe Davis. Church History Matters is a podcast of Scripture Central, a nonprofit which exists to help build enduring faith in Jesus Christ by making Latter-day Saint scripture and church history accessible, comprehensible, and defensible to people everywhere. For more resources to enhance your gospel study, go to scripturecentral.org, where everything is available for free because of the generous donations of people like you. And while we try very hard to be historically and doctrinally accurate in what we say on this podcast, please remember that all views expressed in this and every episode are our views alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of Scripture Central or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thank you so much for being a part of this with us.