Gramps,

What happened at Mountain Meadows?

Frank

Answer

Frank,

The cataclysm began in early September 1857, as the Baker-Fancher wagon train—consisting of 120–150 emigrants—paused at Mountain Meadows roughly 35 miles southwest of Cedar City, Utah. Their party was on the southern route to California, avoiding Sierra snows, but their timing could not have been worse. Southern Utah was on edge: U.S. Army troops were reportedly marching toward Utah, tensions with the federal government had reached a fever pitch, and leaders in Salt Lake City had instructed Latter-day Saints across the territory to prepare for war, store crops, and resist perceived enemies.

On September 7, John D. Lee, a local Church leader and major in the Iron County Militia, led a coalition of Latter-day Saint militiamen and Paiute Indians in an attack on the camped wagon train. The violence began with a siege, as the party huddled behind their wagons for days, desperately digging trenches for cover and running out of ammunition and water. The attackers initially disguised themselves as Indians to obscure their identity, but after several days of fighting, the militiamen realized that the emigrants had seen white men among the attackers.

On September 11, the situation shifted from a standoff to a massacre. Under a flag of truce, Lee approached the wagon train and negotiated a supposed safe surrender, promising protection if they disarmed. The surrender was a ruse: when the emigrants were separated into groups and led away, a signal was given, and the combined militia and Paiute force fell upon the unarmed party, killing men, women, and most children. Only 17 young children were spared and taken in by local Latter-day Saints families before their eventual return to Arkansas.

The horror of the massacre shocked many in Utah and beyond. When the news reached Utah settlements, the reaction among the Latter-day Saints was one of horror and disgust. None would condone the massacre, and even its perpetrators wept. However, suspicion immediately fell on Latter-day Saints, particularly as reports filtered back to the East of white involvement and cover-up efforts. Investigations followed, but bringing the responsible parties to justice would prove elusive for decades, with only John D. Lee eventually tried, convicted, and executed in 1877.

The massacre did not arise in a vacuum. Years of persecution and violence against the Church in Missouri and Illinois left deep scars and fostered a siege mentality among Utah’s Latter-day Saints. In 1857, as tensions with the U.S. government boiled over into the so-called Utah War, Church leaders gave fiery sermons calling for resistance to federal oppression and for defending the faith “until there is not a drop of blood in my veins.” Rhetoric sometimes invoked the idea of “blood atonement” for those viewed as enemies of the Church, further escalating fears and hardening hearts.

Rumors abounded that some among the Baker-Fancher party had boasted of killing Joseph and Hyrum Smith, or had poisoned wells and animals along the route—accusations now viewed with skepticism, but which inflamed local fears at the time. The Church’s advice to refrain from selling food to outsiders created tensions with emigrant parties, already desperate for supplies.

Why did a botched assault transform into a calculated slaughter of nearly an entire wagon train, sparing only the tiniest children? Key testimony at John D. Lee’s second trial sheds light on the rationale presented by the perpetrators: The emigrant party’s members had recognized white participants in the attacks, making it impossible to conceal Mormon involvement. As one militia member recalled, “It seemed to become necessary to kill all to silence the rest … to decide what to do in the dilemma.” Jacob Hamblin, another witness, testified that the massacre was carried out “to cover up Mormon involvement in the violence that had broken out between the two groups.”

Once it was known that the perpetrators were not just Paiutes but included settlers serving in the Church-led Iron County Militia, local leaders such as Isaac C. Haight and Major John M. Higbee orchestrated an elaborate scheme of a feigned surrender in order to annihilate all those who could testify to their identities.

The militia’s role was explicit and highly organized. Isaac C. Haight (the stake president and mayor of Cedar City) directed John D. Lee and other militia to initiate the attack, then escalated efforts as the siege dragged on and evidence of their involvement became evident. Affidavits and later confessions describe councils in Cedar City and Parowan where local leaders voted—sometimes reluctantly—for the massacre. Approximately 50 to 70 militia members participated directly.

Though Paiute Indians took part in both the siege and the slaughter, modern scholarship, as well as Paiute oral history, contend that the local Latter-day Saint militia orchestrated and commanded the event.

The most direct responsibility lies with members and leaders of the Iron County Militia: William H. Dame, Isaac C. Haight, John M. Higbee, and John D. Lee were all indicted for their roles in planning, ordering, and executing the massacre. Lee, who led the initial attack, feigned negotiations and personally participated in the final slaughter, was the only individual successfully prosecuted. Others, such as Haight, Dame, and Higbee, evaded capture or prosecution for years and were never convicted in a court of law.

Some broader complicity falls on the communities of Cedar City, Parowan, and other settlements whose leaders participated in council decisions, marshaled militia units, or, in some cases, provided quarter to survivors.

Contemporary reports—including affidavits by participants and later statements by Native American leaders—differ on the extent of Paiute Indian involvement. Most historians agree they participated as allies in the massacre but were neither its main instigators nor its primary commanders. Modern Paiute accounts, however, assert little if any involvement, contending the focus on Indian participation served to obscure white responsibility.

Central to the enduring controversy is the question: Was Brigham Young, then president of the Church and governor of Utah territory, directly or indirectly responsible? At the time, and in some later histories, accusations abounded that he ordered or implicitly sanctioned the massacre. William Bishop, Lee’s defense attorney, famously accused Young of controlling affairs in Utah so absolutely that “his word was law” and implying that any acts by Church members ultimately redounded to him.

However, the preponderance of historical evidence points the other way. On September 10, 1857—one day before the massacre—Brigham Young sent a letter to Isaac C. Haight instructing local leaders: “You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please, but you should try and preserve good feelings with them.” No direct evidence has surfaced showing Young’s involvement in the planning or ordering of the massacre. In subsequent statements and depositions under oath, Young repeatedly denied any prior knowledge or approval, stating, “The horrifying event transpired without my knowledge … and the recurring thought of it ever causes a shudder in my feelings.”

It is true that Young’s inflammatory rhetoric, combined role as ecclesiastical and civil leader, and siege mentality created an environment where local leaders may have felt empowered or pressured to “act on behalf of the kingdom.” But actual responsibility for planning and carrying out the massacre rests with Iron County Militia leaders, who made critical decisions in the isolation and confusion of southern Utah, often in direct opposition to Young’s specific instructions for restraint.

Some within the local councils opposed the original attack, with a few urging that Brigham Young be consulted further. James Haslam, a messenger, was indeed dispatched to Salt Lake City, but his return came after the massacre’s tragic outcome.

After the massacre, a combination of silence, collusion, and fear prevented legal accountability for most perpetrators. Only John D. Lee was executed—his second trial resulted in a conviction, and he was shot by a firing squad near the massacre site in 1877. In his final words, he declared himself “a victim … sacrificed to satisfy vindictive feelings.” Other indicted men, including Dame, Haight, and Higbee, went into hiding or were never brought properly to trial.

In subsequent years, the Church has issued public apologies and acknowledged the tragedy and suffering caused by the massacre. Official histories now recognize that local leaders, not Brigham Young or top Church leadership, orchestrated and perpetrated the atrocity. The Church has also formally stated that the Paiute people were unfairly burdened with the principal blame, correcting decades of misattributions.

Despite these efforts, public suspicion and accusations have, at times, lingered—not least because of the unique overlap between Church ecclesiastical and civic authority on the Utah frontier. The massacre remains seared into the American memory as a horror, but also as an important warning about zealotry, unchecked authority, and the consequences of dehumanizing outsiders.

Over time, the descendants of both victims and participants have worked toward reconciliation. In 1990, a memorial was dedicated at Mountain Meadows by descendants of both the victims and the perpetrators, symbolizing healing and unity. The massacre site remains sacred ground—a place both for solemn remembrance and for acknowledgment of painful history.

By confronting and understanding tragedies like the Mountain Meadows Massacre, both members of the Church and the wider world can honor the memory of the innocent, seek truth, and commit to peace. Remembering the massacre is not only a warning of past sin, but also an invitation to individual and collective accountability, healing, and reconciliation.

Facts and quotes taken from:

The Mountain Meadows Massacre (Research)

Gramps

Gramps,

Did early LDS women hold the priesthood?

Roy

Answer

Roy,

When The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized in 1830, religious authority and the concept of priesthood were in flux and developing. In 1842, Joseph Smith, Jr., the prophet-founder, organized the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo: the oldest continually operating women’s organization in the United States. During its first meetings, Joseph Smith addressed the assembled women, encouraging them to “move according to the ancient Priesthood,” intending that the Relief Society be “a select Society separate from all the evils of the world, choice, virtuous and holy — said he was going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch’s day.”

On these occasions, the minutes record that Joseph Smith used language indicating parallels—though not equivalence—between the Relief Society and the priesthood. He is recorded instructing the Society to operate “according to the ancient Priesthood,” hinting at a pattern but not at ordination in the sense later associated with priesthood offices.

Joseph Smith and John Taylor indeed ordained Emma Smith and her counselors to preside over the society. However, as later clarified by Joseph Fielding Smith (the Church’s 10th President), the term “ordain” in the early Church was sometimes used synonymously with “set apart,” a general term for being appointed to a religious office or duty. Over time, “ordain” has become reserved for the formal conferral of priesthood offices, all of which are currently reserved for men, while “set apart” describes appointments to Church responsibilities, including those filled by women.

Brigham Young, Joseph’s successor, later stated that women “never can hold the keys of the Priesthood apart from their husband,” underlining the difference between Church government and the self-governing spheres established for women. Nevertheless, women immediately gained position and visibility as leaders within their spheres, especially through the Relief Society.

Within the Church, the “priesthood” is God’s delegated power and authority to act in His name for the salvation of humanity. It is conferred on worthy male members, who are then ordained to offices such as deacon, teacher, priest, bishop, elder, high priest, Seventy, and Apostle. Women are not ordained to these offices. The Church’s handbook and instructional materials explicitly state that ordination and priesthood governance are reserved for men, typically beginning at age 11 or 12 for boys.

Though women are not ordained to the priesthood office, they play vital roles in performing sacred temple ordinances for other women. This is most apparent in the performance of “initiatory” rites (washings and anointings), where decency and ritual propriety require ordinance workers and recipients to be of the same gender.

Joseph Fielding Smith explained:

“A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord … They have authority given unto them to do some great and wonderful things, sacred unto the Lord, and binding just as thoroughly as are the blessings that are given by the men who hold the Priesthood. And you sisters who labor in the House of the Lord can lay your hands upon your sisters, and with divine authority, because the Lord recognizes positions which you occupy.”

This “authority” is not the same as holding a priesthood office. Still, it is priesthood authority in the sense that these ordinances are only performed by the authority of the temple president, who holds priesthood keys. Thus, women officiate in sacred ordinances, but under delegated priesthood authority, not by ordination.

The unique role of women in temple ordinances has been highlighted by contemporary Church leaders. President Dallin H. Oaks observed:

“We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? … When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.”

Thus, women do exercise priesthood authority (delegated, by appointment) in some functions, especially in sacred ordinances in temples. They do not, however, hold priesthood offices—a key distinction in Latter-day Saint theology.

In the early Church, women often exercised spiritual gifts, such as healing the sick through the laying on of hands, just as men did. Joseph Smith taught Relief Society members, drawing on Mark 16:17, that “these signs, such as healing the sick, casting out devils etc. should follow all that believe,” and that there “could be no more sin in any female laying hands on the sick than in wetting the face with water … It is no sin for anybody to do it that has faith.” These faith-based blessings were not priesthood ordinances but expressions of spiritual gifts. Over the 20th century, the encouragement for women to offer such healing blessings outside the temple was discouraged, and today such blessings are reserved for holders of priesthood office.

Joseph Smith’s vision included leading women as well as men into sacred temple rituals, culminating in the “fulness of the priesthood,” with the ultimate promise (for both men and women) to become “kings and priests” and “queens and priestesses,” an expression of Mormon theosis or divinization. These highest temple blessings are promised for eternity and point to a joint participation in the fullness of God’s power, though their full meaning remains, in some measure, mysterious and is spoken of in the future tense.

While men exclusively hold priesthood offices and occupy governance roles, such as bishops and stake presidents, women lead all-female organizations, including the Relief Society, the Young Women, and the Primary (for children). Church governance—the formal, presiding decision-making roles—remains the domain of ordained men. However, women’s contributions, particularly in guiding the spiritual and temporal welfare of other women, are repeatedly affirmed as vital and divinely inspired.

Gramps

Gramps,

If the Priesthood is the power of God given to men on earth, why was it not restored first? Would this power and authority not be required to substantiate the restoration of the gospel?

Poki

Answer

Poki,

Great question. We could also ask the question: Wouldn’t such authority be foundational to any effort to reestablish Christ’s true Church on earth?

To appreciate why the priesthood was not the very first thing restored in the modern era, it is crucial to first understand its nature and purpose. The priesthood, as revealed and taught by leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is the authority to act in the name of God. It is more than simply receiving divine assistance or spiritual gifts; it encompasses both power and the authority to preside, administer, and perform the saving ordinances required for salvation.

It is possible—indeed, often witnessed in scripture and daily life—for individuals to accomplish great things with God’s help without holding a priesthood office. For example, prophets in the Old Testament often fulfilled their callings through inspiration and power before they were specifically assigned to priesthood offices, as later practices dictated. Priesthood authority formalizes this capability, providing a degree of spiritual power and organizational stewardship necessary for building and maintaining Christ’s Church on earth, as outlined in Doctrine and Covenants 84:33-40.

When Joseph Smith began his divine calling, he was often prompted to exercise spiritual gifts—receiving revelation, translating ancient records, and guiding others spiritually—before being formally ordained to a priesthood office. This progression points to an important principle: spiritual power and divine assistance can precede and prepare the way for the restoration of full priesthood authority, much as spiritual awakening precedes the establishment of Church order.

The notion of priesthood authority lies at the heart of why a restoration—or restoration of all things—was necessary in the first place. Following the culmination of Christ’s mortal ministry, the early Church was organized with apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Peter, James, and John were called as a presidency to guide the fledgling Church. However, persecution soon followed, leading to the martyrdom of the apostles. The general priesthood authority, centralized in the apostles, was lost as each was killed or, in John’s case, exiled.

Local bishops held limited authority from the general Church leaders, but as the lines of succession were broken and the last bishops ordained by the apostles died, priesthood authority to administer gospel ordinances and organize the Church on earth perished. The absence of this authority led to what is known as the Great Apostasy—a period during which much gospel truth was obscured or lost, and priesthood authority was no longer to be found on the earth.

President Boyd K. Packer, a senior apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, explained, “We owe an immense debt to the protesters and the reformers who preserved the scriptures and translated them. They knew something had been lost. They kept the flame alive as best they could. Many of them were martyrs. But protesting was not enough; nor could reformers restore that which was gone.” The Cloven Tongues of Fire

This environment persisted through centuries of darkness and spiritual drought. However, God did not wholly abandon humanity. Reformers preserved key elements—like the Bible—that would later make the Restoration possible. Events like the invention of the printing press and the rise of constitutional government created the social, intellectual, and religious climate necessary for the birth of a new dispensation of the gospel. As the world was thus prepared, a fourteen-year-old Joseph Smith experienced a vision in 1820, in which God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him, commissioning him to restore true Church and priesthood authority.

The question yet lingers: Why wasn’t priesthood authority restored first? Why did Joseph Smith receive revelation, translation gifts, and even certain commandments before receiving priesthood ordination?

The Restoration process exemplified a divine order and wisdom. As Joseph Smith’s ministry progressed and the translation of the Book of Mormon neared completion (with the need to administer ordinances and organize believers into a Church), the time for the restoration of priesthood authority arrived.

On May 15, 1829, John the Baptist appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, conferring upon them the Aaronic Priesthood—enabling them to baptize and perform other basic ordinances. Soon after, Peter, James, and John (the original ancient apostles) appeared, conferring the Melchizedek Priesthood, with higher powers including the right to give the gift of the Holy Ghost and preside over the Church. By the time The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized on April 6, 1830, Joseph and Oliver held sufficient priesthood authority to officially lead and establish the organization and administer all essential ordinances.

A fascinating aspect of the period between apostasy and restoration is the role of translated beings who continued to reside on earth, such as John the Beloved and the Three Nephites, as featured in the Book of Mormon. While these individuals retained priesthood office and power, they were hidden from the world. Critically, they did not possess or were not granted the keys necessary to restore priesthood authority or reorganize Christ’s Church. The authority required for the Restoration rested in resurrected or divinely sent messengers—such as John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John—rather than in those who remained incognito throughout the centuries.

The loss of public priesthood authority did not mean all gospel truth disappeared, or that God abandoned His children entirely. Rather, it meant that key ordinances necessary for salvation and the organization of Christ’s true Church could not be performed until they were restored by those authorized to do so. The dim candlelight of truth endured, but the bright light of the restored gospel had to await the divine timetable.

Another dimension to consider is the relationship between the priesthood in the premortal existence and the priesthood conferred in mortality. According to prophetic teachings, the priesthood is the authority to act in God’s name, both in the premortal world and in mortality. Adam and others held a form of priesthood authority before coming to earth to fulfill their callings in the heavenly council. Joseph Fielding Smith and other authorities affirmed that assignments and priesthood existed in the spirit world. Still, upon entering mortality, a physical conferral and ordination were always required for mortals to act in priestly capacities on earth.

This emphasizes an important truth: spiritual authority and stewardship are context-dependent. The priesthood necessary to govern and save in the mortal realm is conferred through earthly ordination, regardless of premortal assignments or premortal spiritual status.

The Restoration of priesthood authority in the latter days carries massive theological and practical implications for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well as the world at large.

From Adam’s dispensation to the time of Christ, cycles of apostasy and restoration followed the loss of priesthood authority. The Restoration, however, through Joseph Smith, was unique. This final dispensation—called “the fulness of times”—was prophesied by Daniel (Daniel 2:44) and others to never end in apostasy but eventually fill and transform the earth. In October 1831, Joseph Smith received a revelation stating, “The keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth, and from thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth, as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth” (Doctrine & Covenants 65:2).

One of the remarkable evidences of the Restoration is the ability of every priesthood holder in the restored Church to trace his authority back to Jesus Christ Himself, through an unbroken succession of laying on of hands. This lineage was not possible during the Great Apostasy and is unique to the modern-day Church.

As the Church organizes throughout the world, the restored priesthood administers gospel ordinances, directs the work of salvation, and unifies believers. This is made possible by the priesthood keys and authority restored through Joseph Smith and his successors. The Restoration thus provides not only theological roots but living fruits—blessings daily available to millions of men, women, and children across the globe.

For all seeking light, hope, and divine guidance, the story of the Restoration and the return of priesthood authority stands as a testament that God still speaks, still leads, and still loves His children—inviting all to come and partake of the fullness of His gospel blessings.

Gramps

Gramps,

Were the jailers in Hyrum and Joseph Smith’s murder ever charged, as well as any mob or persons involved in anti-Mormon behavior?

Ronda

Answer

Ronda,

Joseph Smith was not only the religious leader and prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; he was also a charismatic and controversial political figure. Hailed by his followers as a visionary and by his critics as dangerously unconventional, Joseph’s life was repeatedly marked by conflict and exile, as the Latter-day Saints moved from New York to Ohio, Missouri, and finally to Nauvoo, Illinois. Yet, nowhere did the social and religious tensions that surrounded the Church reach a more deadly pitch than in Illinois during the early 1840s.

The immediate cause of the mob’s wrath was the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper started by dissenters from the Church who exposed internal disagreements and accused Church leaders of misconduct. As mayor of Nauvoo, Joseph Smith and the city council ordered the press destroyed, fearing it would inflame violence against the Saints. This action, seen by outsiders as a tyrannical affront to freedom of the press, quickly escalated animosity against Joseph and his closest associates and set the stage for his arrest and eventual death at Carthage Jail.

The account, published by the Church in Doctrine and Covenants 135, describes how Joseph and Hyrum were shot by a mob masked with black paint, numbering between 150 and 200 men, who stormed the jail at around 5:00 p.m. on June 27, 1844. Hyrum was killed instantly, while Joseph, after firing back in self-defense, leapt for the window and was shot multiple times, crying, “O Lord, my God!” Both brothers were shot again after death, in what the Church remembers as an act of brutal martyrdom.

After the smoke had cleared and the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum were brought home to their grieving families and followers, a crucial question loomed: Would those responsible ever face consequences for their actions?

Despite the size of the mob (estimated at 150–200 men), only nine individuals were ever indicted for the murders. Four of the indicted men—John Wills, William Voras, and two men known only as Gallaher and Allen—fled the county to avoid trial. Of these, Wills, Voras, and Gallaher reportedly received wounds when Joseph Smith, armed within the jail, fired back through the cell door in self-defense.

The remaining five men—Levi Williams, Mark Aldrich, Jacob C. Davis, Thomas C. Sharp, and William N. Grover—stood trial in May 1845 in what became known as the People v. Levi Williams et al., or the Carthage Conspiracy Trial. The courtroom itself was a charged environment. According to contemporary accounts, the courthouse was packed with armed supporters of the defendants, creating an atmosphere of intimidation not only for witnesses but also for the judge, who allegedly felt his own life was in danger throughout the proceedings. As B.H. Roberts later summarized, the “armed mob stamped with their feet and yelled their approbation at every sarcastic and smart thing that was said, and the judge was not only forced to hear it but to lend it a kind of approval.”

Witnesses, likely influenced by this oppressive atmosphere or divided loyalties, denied knowledge of the critical facts. As one observer put it, “faction may find men honest, but it scarcely ever leaves them so. This was verified to the letter in the history of the Mormon quarrel. The accused were all acquitted.”

On May 30, 1845, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty for all five defendants. The outcome surprised few, especially among the remaining Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo. Brigham Young, who would soon lead the Church westward, wrote in his journal that the verdict was just as he had anticipated; the local newspaper, Nauvoo Neighbor, observed that “convictions never are to be expected in ‘martyr cases.’”

Why was no one punished for such a high-profile double murder? The answer involves a complex web of local politics, societal hostilities, and the limits of the law in a divided frontier society.

The killing of Joseph Smith was not an isolated incident but the climax of years of simmering tensions between the rapidly growing Latter-day Saint community in Nauvoo and their non-Latter-day Saint neighbors in Illinois. Joseph Smith wielded substantial influence both as a religious and civic leader, commanding the Nauvoo Legion (the city militia), serving as mayor, and wielding remarkable political clout. For many opponents, the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor was a red line, confirming their suspicions of Smith as an authoritarian threat.

Yet, as one anthropologist observed, the very practices that made the Latter-day Saints suspect—tight-knit communalism, secretive rituals, the creation of a city militia—were not unique to the Church. Similar practices could be found in other utopian communities and fraternal societies of the era. What made life so perilous for the Saints, then, was not only what they did, but the intensity and visibility with which they did it, and the degree to which they challenged prevailing social norms. When the tide turned fully against the Latter-day Saints, few outside the faith were willing to defend them—neither in the press nor in court.

Even in a “free state” like Illinois, the rule of law was often fragile when underlying social consensus broke down. The demographic and political weight of anti-Latter-day Saint sentiment was such that the trial in Carthage could scarcely be impartial. The defense, rather than mounting a case for innocence, attacked Governor Ford and the entire legitimacy of Latter-day Saint grievances. Armed observers influenced the proceedings, and witnesses shied away from testifying openly. It was an environment where “the crowd had everything their own way,” and justice, in the formal sense, could not be expected.

The Church treats June 27, 1844, as a day of solemn remembrance and reflection, commemorating the prophetic martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. The events in Carthage Jail and the failure of Illinois courts to convict anyone for the crimes show narratives of suffering for faith’s sake and standing firm in the face of overwhelming hostility.

The knowledge that no one was ever held accountable for their murders only amplifies the sense of injustice and sacrifice felt by members of the Church. As recounted in reports and histories, this outcome was anticipated and later understood as both a sign of the perils the Saints faced and a testament to the faith’s resilience. It is precisely within this complexity—where martyrdom and agency, faith and violence, justice and its failure are all present—that many Latter-day Saints find the deepest sources of meaning and conviction.

Gramps

Answer

Robert,

Joseph Smith, the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, organized the Church in 1830 during a period of social transformation and deep racial divisions in America. Amidst currents of abolition and entrenched slavery, the early Latter-day Saints sought to build a religious community based on revealed divine principles. Yet questions of race, equality, and authority would test the Church’s identity from the outset.

While the Church’s doctrine emphasized the universal salvation of humankind, the day-to-day realities of race relations in antebellum America inevitably influenced administrative decisions. Nevertheless, historical records from the Joseph Smith era show moments when Black en were ordained to the priesthood and, in at least one prominent case, participated in sacred temple ordinances. 

The most documented example of a Black man ordained to the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime is Elijah Able (sometimes spelled Abel or Ables), born in 1810 in Maryland. Abel was baptized into the Church in 1832 and soon took an active role in the faith community. He was ordained an elder by Ambrose Palmer on March 3, 1836. This ordination was officially recognized with a ministerial certificate signed by Joseph Smith himself, attesting to Abel’s authority as an elder in the Church.

Gramps

Gramps,

Is it true that women could give blessings of healing in the early history of the Church? I read about it on some website, but I don’t really trust non-LDS websites.

Andrea

Answer

Andrea,

In the early days of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, women played significant roles in various capacities, including healing and administering blessings. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church, acknowledged the spiritual authority of women in certain contexts. For instance, during a meeting of the Nauvoo Relief Society in 1842, he instructed that women could lay hands on the sick and perform healings, stating that there was “no sin” in women laying on hands to heal others. This acknowledgment of women’s spiritual gifts was significant, as it indicated a level of authority and responsibility that women held in the early Church.

Women like Eda Hollister Rogers received patriarchal blessings that included the promise that they could lay hands on their children for healing in the absence of their husbands. This practice highlights the recognition of women’s spiritual authority, albeit in a non-priesthood context. Furthermore, historical records indicate that women were involved in administering blessings and performing rituals, such as washing and anointing, which were seen as acts of faith rather than priesthood duties.

The establishment of the Relief Society in 1842 marked a pivotal moment for women in the Church. Joseph Smith encouraged the formation of this organization to provide support and service to the community. The first leaders of the Relief Society, including Emma Smith, were “ordained” to their positions, which some interpret as a form of recognition of their authority. However, it is essential to note that this ordination was not equivalent to holding the priesthood, as later leaders clarified that women could not hold the keys of the priesthood apart from their husbands.

Despite this limitation, the Relief Society became a vital organization for women, allowing them to exercise leadership and service in various capacities. Women were encouraged to teach, serve, and support one another, creating a network of support that was crucial for the early Saints. This organization laid the groundwork for women’s involvement in the Church, even as the priesthood remained male-only.

As the Church grew and evolved, so did the understanding of women’s roles. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, women continued to participate in healing practices, but the Church’s official stance began to shift. Leaders like Joseph Fielding Smith emphasized that while women could participate in blessings, these were not to be considered priesthood blessings. This distinction became increasingly important as the Church sought to clarify the roles of men and women within its structure.

By the mid-20th century, the Church’s policies regarding women’s participation in healing and blessings became more restrictive. Leaders began to discourage women from performing washings and anointings, emphasizing that such practices should be reserved for those holding the priesthood. This shift reflected a broader trend within the Church to reinforce traditional gender roles and limit women’s authority in spiritual matters.

In recent years, the conversation surrounding women and the priesthood has gained renewed attention. Many members of the Church, particularly women, have expressed a desire for greater inclusion and recognition of their spiritual authority. Some argue that the current structure is outdated and does not reflect the capabilities and contributions of women within the Church. Others maintain that the existing gender roles are divinely inspired and should remain unchanged.

The Church has made some strides in recognizing the contributions of women, such as allowing them to serve in leadership roles within the Relief Society and other organizations. However, the question of whether women should be ordained to the priesthood remains a contentious issue. Advocates for women’s ordination argue that it would empower women and allow them to fully participate in the Church’s mission, while opponents contend that the current structure is essential for maintaining order and divine authority.

Reference:

Women and the Priesthood

Gramps

Gramps,

What was the early Church’s stance on slavery?

Leslie

Answer

Leslie,

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded in 1830, a period marked by significant social and political upheaval in the United States. The years preceding the Civil War were characterized by a growing divide between the North and South over the issue of slavery. Joseph Smith, the Church’s founder, and Brigham Young, his successor, lived during this tumultuous time, and their views on slavery were shaped by the prevailing attitudes of their era.

Joseph Smith was known for his progressive views on many social issues, including slavery. In 1844, he publicly declared his opposition to slavery and included abolition as part of his presidential campaign platform. He proposed a plan to compensate slave owners for freeing their slaves, suggesting that the government should pay a “reasonable price” for each enslaved person, funded by the sale of public lands and congressional salaries. This stance was radical for its time and demonstrated Smith’s commitment to social justice.

However, the Church’s early membership was predominantly composed of individuals from the Northern states, where anti-slavery sentiments were strong. As the Church began to grow and migrate westward, it encountered pro-slavery sentiments, particularly in Missouri, where tensions between the Church and local residents were exacerbated by fears that the Church’s anti-slavery stance would influence political outcomes.

When the Saints migrated to the Utah Territory in 1847, the legal landscape regarding slavery changed. The Compromise of 1850 allowed for slavery in Utah, and while the Church’s leaders, including Brigham Young, initially expressed opposition to the institution, they also recognized the reality of the situation. Young himself owned a slave, Green Flake, who was one of the first African Americans to enter Utah. The Church’s position on slavery became more ambiguous as it adapted to the new environment.

Brigham Young’s views on race were complex. He believed in the inherent humanity of all people but also held views that reflected the racial prejudices of his time. He publicly stated that people of African descent could not hold the priesthood, a policy that would later become a significant point of contention within the Church. Young’s conflicting beliefs about race and slavery illustrate the broader societal tensions that existed during this period.

While the Church’s leadership grappled with the issue of slavery, the experiences of Black members within the faith varied widely. Some were enslaved, while others were free and actively participated in the Church’s activities.

Another notable figure is Biddy Mason, who was born into slavery in Missouri and later gained her freedom in California. Mason’s story highlights the intersection of race, faith, and social justice, as she became a successful entrepreneur and advocate for the rights of Black individuals. Her experiences demonstrate that while some Black members faced significant challenges, others were able to carve out successful lives within the Church and society.

The Church’s early leaders held a range of views on race, influenced by the broader societal attitudes of their time. While some members, like Elijah Abel, were ordained to the priesthood, the prevailing belief among many Church leaders was that Black individuals were inferior and suited for servitude. This belief was rooted in a misinterpretation of scripture and societal norms that perpetuated racial inequality.

As the Church moved into the 20th century, its stance on race began to evolve. The Church officially disavowed all forms of racism and sought to promote equality among its members. This shift was a response to the changing social landscape and the growing recognition of the need for inclusivity within the faith.

References and related articles:

Did Church members own slaves?

What side of the U.S. Civil War were Mormons on?

Slavery in Utah

Blacks and the Priesthood (Joseph Smith Era)

Gramps

Gramps,

I recently heard that Brigham Young ordained his 11-year-old son, John Willard Young, as an Apostle to have John become Prophet due to seniority (at a later date). If this is true, why would a current prophet ordain an 11-year-old? Does this mock the role of prophets and apostles?

Paul

Answer

Paul,

Sometimes we come across some factoids that really don’t make much sense at all until we fill it in with some details.  And I hope that is what you are here to obtain.

It appears that Brigham did ordain John when he was 11 years old to the priesthood office of apostle.  But both the efficacy and the motive behind it are unclear.

While yet a boy, John was ordained an apostle by his father. This ordination was confirmed by President Young when the young man was nineteen, and although John never became a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, he honored this sacred calling while serving as president of the Salt Lake Stake, as a missionary in England, and as counselor to his prophet-father in the First Presidency. (John Willard Young | Religious Studies Center)

The real question is “Why?”  Was it really to make him a future prophet?  If so, that was an ineffective way to do it.

Not only did Brigham ordain John, but he also ordained his two older brothers as apostles as well.  They would have been much more likely to become the prophet if that was the intent.

Another big hurdle is that the records of the Church trump verbal affirmations.  In this dispensation, if it isn’t recorded, it didn’t happen.  And while Brigham did physically go through the motions at an earlier date, official Church records state that he was ordained at 19.

Transcript for Andrew Jenson, “Young, John Willard,” Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia, vol. 1 (Salt Lake City: Andrew Jenson History Company, 1901), 42

 

Young: John Willard, first counselor to Pres. Brigham Young from 1876 to 1877, is the son of President Brigham Young and Mary Ann Angell and was born Oct 1, 1844 in Nauvoo, Hancock, Illinois. He was baptized when about eight years old and confirmed by Brigham Young, by whom he was ordained an Apostle, Feb. 4, 1864. In 1866 and 1867 he filled a mission to Europe. (Transcript | Church History Biographical Database)

Again, we come back to why Brigham would have done this.  Was it some scheme by Brigham to ensure his offspring would become a future Prophet?  It doesn’t really seem feasible.

Here is a list of the youngest apostles called:

John Willard Young (born 1844) – 11 years
George A Smith (b. 1817) – 21 years, 10 months
Oliver Cowdery (b. 1806) – 22 years, 8 months
Lyman E. Johnson (b. 1811) – 23 years, 4 months
Joseph Smith, Jr. (b. 1805) – 23 years, 5 months
John F. Boynton (b. 1811) – 23 years, 5 months
Orson Pratt (b. 1811) – 23 years, 7 months
William B. Smith (b. 1811) – 23 years, 11 months
Abraham O. Woodruff (b. 1872) – 24 years, 10 months
Heber J. Grant (b. 1856) – 25 years, 11 months
John W. Taylor (b. 1858) – 25 years, 11 months
Brigham Young, Jr. (b. 1836) – 27 years, 2 months
Luke Johnson (b. 1807) – 27 years, 3 months
Joseph F. Smith (b. 1838) – 27 years, 7 months
Franklin D. Richards (b. 1821) – 27 years, 10 months
Parley P. Pratt (b. 1807) – 27 years, 10 months

So, in this list, the age of 19 does not seem out of place.  Someone had to be the youngest apostle.  Why not him?   Would it be wrong if it were 19?  20?  22? 28?  When does it become ok? 45?

Notice the second person on this list.  George A Smith.  He was given such a promise early on.  But he was actually ordained years later.  That brings up a theory.  What often happened in the past (much less so today) was that fathers would give priesthood blessings which indicated certain promises to their children that would be realized in the years to come.  It may be that this is one instance of such a promise.  Or it may be something completely different.  It may have been a promise of future events rather than an actual ordination.  Even so, the age of 19 also seems unusual to our modern sensibilities.

“Prophets and apostles are old men,” right?  Well, Samuel was pretty young when he was called of the Lord.  So, it may just seem strange because it is different than what we are used to.

You’ll notice that a great many of these young apostles (see list above) were sent out as missionaries shortly after their ordination.  John left just two years after his ordination.  Then he was sent on another mission two years later.

If Brigham had some selfish reason to ordain John Willard, then he would answer to the Lord for that.  But there’s no evidence that would support this theory.  It was Brigham’s very own declaration that prophetic succession was not about ordination dates.

Prior to his death, Brigham realized that he had to set the record straight or else there may be another succession crisis.  After the aftermath of Joseph’s martyrdom, he felt duty-bound to prevent that from happening again.

Orson Hyde left Church activity, and thus the quorum, on October 19, 1838. When dealing with seniority in the council in 1875, long after the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., Brigham Young ruled that, if a council member had been disciplined and removed from the council, his seniority was based on the date of readmission. By this ruling, in June 1875, both Hyde and Apostle Orson Pratt were moved down in council seniority. So, when Hyde repented in 1839, he effectively joined the quorum as a new member. As a result of this ruling, John Taylor, rather than Orson Hyde, succeeded Brigham Young as President of the Church. (Mormonwiki, Orson Hyde)

This was a declaration that Brigham, himself, had made concerning seniority.  And he knew full well that this would leave his son, John out of the running since he was never an official member of the quorum.  His continuous years of service = 0.

Additionally, this counters a common argument that the decision was made to “change the rules” after Lorenzo Snow passed away (to prevent John from becoming the Prophet).  The rules were already there.  They just enforced them.  There was no “change” required.  At worst, it was simply clarifying the application of the existing rules to the current situation.

So, clearly, it was not the intended result to ensure that a young boy would become a prophet someday.  You can choose to be suspicious if you want.  Or you can choose to just chalk it up to “just another factoid” that ruffles our modern sensibilities, but in the grand scheme doesn’t seem much of anything.

 Gramps

Gramps,

We know Oliver Cowdery wrote the words of the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith translated them. Who wrote down Christ’s words that were spoken to Joseph Smith in the Doctrine & Covenants?

Yvonne

Answer

Yvonne,

The establishment of systematic record-keeping within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was divinely mandated. In Doctrine and Covenants 21:1, the Lord commanded the Saints to maintain written records of their activities, underscoring the importance of preserving the Church’s history and revelations for future generations. This directive ensured that the spiritual and organizational developments of the Church were meticulously documented, providing a foundation for its growth and doctrinal consistency.

Oliver Cowdery, one of the earliest members and a close associate of Joseph Smith, initially assumed the responsibility of keeping these records. His dedication to this task was pivotal in the Church’s formative years. However, Cowdery’s missionary call soon diverted his focus, prompting the need for others to continue this essential work.

John Whitmer, another prominent early member, returned from his mission and was appointed by the Elders’ voice to maintain the Church record. His role was further solidified when Joseph Smith entrusted him with the responsibility of writing and preserving the Church’s history. Despite Whitmer’s initial reluctance—expressed through his humble declaration, “I would rather not do it”—his commitment to the Church’s mission prevailed, ensuring that the records continued to be diligently maintained.

The meticulous preservation of revelations extended beyond mere record-keeping to the very process by which these divine messages were captured. A notable example is the creation of the preface found in the Doctrine and Covenants. As documented in Doctrine & Covenants 1, Joseph Smith dictated the preface by the spirit while seated by a window, initiating a collaborative process with Sidney Rigdon.

Sidney Rigdon played a crucial role in transcribing Joseph Smith’s dictated revelations. The process was iterative and sacred: Joseph would deliver a few sentences, Rigdon would write them down, read them aloud, and upon Joseph’s confirmation of their accuracy, the process would continue. This method ensured that the written records faithfully reflected the divine inspiration Joseph Smith received, preserving the integrity and authenticity of the revelations.

This collaborative effort between Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon was instrumental in the creation of the Doctrine & Covenants. Rigdon’s obedience and attentiveness to Joseph’s dictation were vital in capturing the exact words spoken by Christ, thereby safeguarding the Church’s doctrinal foundations.

The dedication of early Church leaders like John Whitmer and Sidney Rigdon in preserving revelations and Church history has had a lasting impact on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Their commitment ensured that vital documents like the Doctrine & Covenants were accurately compiled and maintained, providing a continuous link between the Church’s inception and its current global presence.

Moreover, the establishment of a robust record-keeping system fostered transparency and accountability within the Church’s leadership and membership. It allowed for the accurate transmission of teachings, ordinances, and prophetic guidance, which are essential for the spiritual growth and unity of the Saints.

The early efforts in documentation also set a precedent for future generations, emphasizing the importance of preserving divine revelation and Church history. This legacy continues to influence the Church’s approach to record-keeping, ensuring that sacred teachings remain accessible and uncontaminated by time.

The preservation of Christ’s words in the Doctrine & Covenants stands as a testament to the unwavering dedication of early Church leaders like John Whitmer and Sidney Rigdon. Their collaborative efforts with Joseph Smith ensured that divine revelations were meticulously recorded, providing a cornerstone for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As the Church continues to grow and evolve, the foundational work of these early record-keepers remains a guiding light, exemplifying the importance of faithful documentation in sustaining religious heritage and doctrine.

Gramps

Gramps,

When did the fast and testimony start every first Sunday of the month and why is it done once a month?

John

Answer

John,

The origins of Fast and Testimony Day trace back to the early days of the Church. Initially, the Latter-day Saints observed their fast on the first Thursday of each month. This practice was established by Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of the Church, as a means to gather the community in devotion and charitable activities. Members would come together to bring the food they had not consumed during their fast to distribute to the poor, embodying the principles of self-sacrifice and service.

However, as the Church grew and evolved, so did its practices. In 1896, a significant change was made to the scheduling of Fast Day. President Joseph F. Smith proposed shifting the observance from Thursday to Sunday, a suggestion that was met with approval by President George Q. Cannon and other Church leaders. This amendment was formalized on November 5, 1896, when it was decided that instead of holding Tabernacle services on the first Sunday, Saints in both city and country wards would have the privilege of participating in Fast and Testimony meetings.

This transition was not merely a procedural adjustment but reflected a broader integration of Fast Day into the weekly rhythm of Church life. Moving the fast to Sunday aligned it with the day of communal worship, reinforcing the interconnectedness of fasting, prayer, and service within the congregational setting.

Gramps

Gramps,

Why was there racism in the religion? We’re not supposed to hate people so why hate people of color?

Katelyn

Answer

Katelyn,

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a rich tapestry of history that includes both commendable advances and painful missteps regarding race relations. As society grapples with the complexities of racism, it is important to reflect on how the Church has navigated this challenging issue.

In the early days of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the teachings of founder Joseph Smith presented a more inclusive perspective on race. Notably, Smith ordained black men to the priesthood, including Elijah Abel, as early as 1836. This early practice demonstrated that the Church’s initial doctrines were not inherently exclusionary based on race. However, this progressive beginning was soon overshadowed by the prevailing societal attitudes of the mid-19th century.

In 1852, under the leadership of Brigham Young, the Church publicly instituted a policy that prohibited men of African descent from holding the priesthood. This decision was heavily influenced by the racial climate of the time, reflecting societal beliefs rather than the core teachings of the gospel. The implications of this ban were significant, as it led to the exclusion of black members from key aspects of Church life, including temple ordinances.

The priesthood ban persisted for over a century, during which various rationales were presented by Church leaders. Some suggested that individuals with African ancestry were less valiant in the pre-existence, a belief that was not rooted in any doctrinal basis but rather in cultural perceptions of race. This exclusion had lasting effects on the Church’s racial dynamics and created a legacy of pain and division among its members.

As societal norms began to change in the 1960s and 1970s, pressure mounted on the Church to reevaluate its racial policies. The civil rights movement and shifting public attitudes prompted discussions among Church leaders about the need for change. In 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball received a significant revelation, lifting the priesthood ban and allowing all worthy male members, regardless of race, to access priesthood and temple ordinances. This momentous shift marked a turning point in the Church’s history and opened the door for greater inclusivity.