Historian John Turner is author of Joseph Smith, The Rise and Fall of an American Prophet, offers profound insights into the complex life of the Latter-day Saint prophet. Delving into controversies, personal struggles, and significant events, Turner’s analysis sheds light on Joseph Smith’s journey from early church leader to a figure of immense influence and contention.
The Early Years: Controversies and Challenges
One of the earliest controversies surrounding Joseph Smith is his relationship with Fanny Alger. While allegations of polygamy in Eber D Howe’s Mormonism Unvailed date back to the mid-1830s, the precise nature and timing of the Fanny Alger episode are debated. Rick notes that Don Bradley and Christopher Smith’s chapter pushes the Fanny Alger incident to 1836, suggesting it was a possible adoptive sealing. John Turner, having reviewed this argument, found it persuasive regarding the dating, noting that her departure from Kirtland in August or September 1836 suggests the controversy happened shortly before. However, Turner himself did not adopt the “adoptive sealing” explanation in his book, finding it unlikely given that Joseph Smith had not yet articulated his understanding of sealing at that point. Instead, Turner believes it was most likely some sort of brief intimate relationship that would have been disturbing to Oliver Cowdery and Emma Smith. Oliver Cowdery was reportedly still very angry about it in early 1838. Importantly, Turner clarifies that he does not view Fanny Alger as Joseph Smith’s first plural wife. He also notes that critics at the time did not widely associate the Fanny Alger controversy with plural marriage or polygamy.
During this period, the Church’s stance on marriage was clarified. In 1835, the Church’s Declaration on Marriage emphasized monogamy as the standard.
Zion’s Camp and Joseph’s Dog
Moving forward to 1834, Joseph Smith led Zion’s Camp, an expedition intended to reclaim land in Missouri for the Saints. While the explicit goal of redeeming Zion was not fulfilled, and some participants were disillusioned, for the majority, their faith was strengthened. Turner notes that Joseph Smith highly valued the loyalty of those who participated, rewarding many with blessings and church offices.
A lighter, yet illustrative, detail from this period involves Old Major, Joseph Smith’s dog. During the difficult march to Missouri, conflict arose between Old Major and Sylvester Smith (no relation to Joseph). Sylvester made rude comments about the dog, even threatening to shoot it, leading Joseph to reportedly threaten to shoot Sylvester in return. This anecdote highlights the tensions and conflicts among the group, indicating they were “not all of one heart and mind.” Sylvester Smith later drifted away from the church after publishing a confession of opposing Joseph, which he secretly noted was made “under duress.”
Imprisonment in Liberty Jail and its Impact
Joseph Smith’s four months in Liberty Jail in Missouri (1838-1839) were a profoundly significant, albeit terrible, period in his life. Confined in a squalid jail and facing a capital charge of treason, Joseph felt abandoned by God. This experience left him traumatized, and Turner argues it significantly influenced his later actions in Nauvoo, particularly his approach to politics and the judicial system. Joseph’s subsequent “reckless, provocative, sometimes unwise” decisions in Nauvoo, especially regarding avoiding arrest, are understood by Turner as a direct result of his fear of imprisonment and execution.
Rise of Nauvoo and the Emergence of Polygamy
After his escape from jail in Missouri, Joseph Smith quickly led the Saints to establish Nauvoo in Illinois. This was facilitated by land purchases from Isaac Galland, a land speculator. Joseph’s response to setbacks was to “double or triple down on his vision,” leading to rapid gathering and the construction of an even larger community. By 1844, Nauvoo reportedly rivaled Chicago as the largest city in Illinois, a remarkable acceleration of Joseph’s vision.
The Nauvoo period also saw the widespread implementation of polygamy, a topic extensively covered in Turner’s book. Turner confirms that the evidence for Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy is overwhelming. Key sources include:
• William Clayton’s Journal: Considered a “fantastic and extensive contemporary account” and a “reliable account of Joseph’s polygamy.”
• Journals of Willard Richards and Brigham Young: These align with affidavits about Joseph’s plural marriages.
• Temple Lot testimony: Even very late sources, such as the testimonies of Joseph’s wives, like Emily Dow Partridge, were not flattering for Joseph Smith, leading Turner to believe the Church did not “cook this up.”
The pace of Joseph’s plural marriages was astonishing, with him reportedly taking approximately a dozen wives in 1842 alone. Joseph Smith himself did not explicitly articulate a reason for the exact number of women he married. However, Turner suggests a theological motivation: Joseph connected the size of an individual’s family on earth to the extent of his heavenly glory. This led to a directive to “get all that you can,” explaining the rapid pace and diversity of women he was sealed to, including very young, older, married, and single women. Turner describes Joseph’s pursuit of plural marriage as “assiduously” and “recklessly” pursued, even after it became a public controversy.
Regarding sexual relations in these plural marriages, Turner emphasizes the distinction between what can be documented and what is reasonable supposition.
• Documentation: Some marriages were clearly consummated, such as what was likely the first plural marriage to Louisa Beaman.
• Uncertainty: It’s unknown if all marriages were consummated, especially those to already married women or very young women like Helen Mar Kimball (who was 13). Turner asserts that historians should acknowledge what they don’t know.
• Supposition: Turner believes it’s a reasonable supposition that there was at most infrequent sex because, despite Joseph’s fertility (he had children with Emma until his death), these plural marriages did not produce children. He finds it unlikely there were many pregnancies that were aborted. This suggests that Joseph may have consummated some sealings and then had little further interaction with the women, as he lacked time for ongoing relationships. This inference points away from polygamy being solely about sex, suggesting other “theological motivations.”
The Final Months: Recklessness and Habeas Corpus
The final months of Joseph Smith’s life in 1844 were marked by increasing danger and his own “provocative and reckless” actions. He engaged in “unnecessary fights,” denouncing and antagonizing opponents, almost “inviting opposition.” The destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper was a “brazen act” that made him vulnerable. While some, like Michael Quinn, focused on the political implications (Council of Fifty, foreign negotiations) as the primary concern for suppressing the Expositor, Turner notes that Joseph and his allies raised a variety of objections, including theological innovations and political power, not just polygamy.
Turner explains that Joseph was under “incredible amount of stress” during this time, fearing attack, imprisonment, and execution. This stress, he suggests, often got “the better of him,” leading to unconstructive responses.
Joseph Smith initially fled Nauvoo to evade arrest but chose to return to Nauvoo and then go to Carthage, a decision that ultimately led to his death. While some later sources blamed Emma or others for influencing this decision, a contemporary letter from Vilate Kimble states that Joseph returned because he sought the will of the Lord and received a revelation telling him to do so.
A significant legal tool Joseph used throughout this period was habeas corpus. Initially, Joseph used habeas corpus appropriately, such as when a state judge (Stephen Douglas) ruled an arrest warrant against him invalid. However, in 1842, Nauvoo’s city council began passing statutes that enhanced its power to issue writs of habeas corpus, allowing the municipal court to rule on the legality of any arrest, whether for internal Nauvoo law, state law, or more serious charges. This made it “really easy for him to get off” and “justifiably made everybody angry.” While this abuse of power was problematic, Turner points out the irony that when Joseph finally did submit to arrest, a mob killed him, highlighting the “weakness of the legal and political system in Illinois.”
Overall Impressions of Joseph Smith
John Turner concludes his biography with a nuanced view of Joseph Smith. He places himself in the camp that sees Joseph as a bit of both a prophet and scoundrel. Turner admires Joseph as a “religion maker” and “forger of a tradition,” enjoying elements of his personality and finding his ideas “arresting.”
However, Turner also acknowledges significant flaws:
• Joseph could be “callous” and “cruel” at times, particularly in his treatment of close associates like Orson and Parley Pratt or Martin Harris.
• Turner expresses “serious reservations about the way that Joseph pursued plural marriage” and his treatment of women and their families.
• While he doesn’t label Joseph a narcissist, Turner suggests he had a “touch of megalomania” regarding his role and his “imperviousness to risk and danger.” He generally avoids psychologizing Joseph in his historical work.
Despite these criticisms, Turner admits he likes Joseph more than he dislikes him. He believes a biographer’s task isn’t to like or dislike the subject, but to present an honest account.
John Turner’s Joseph Smith, The Rise and Fall of an American Prophet offers a comprehensive and balanced look at one of American history’s most fascinating and controversial figures.
What are your impressions of Turner’s book?
Wheat & Tares 
Rick B,
I appreciate you introducing this book and providing a review of its content. Turner’s perspective of Joseph Smith aligns with mine. I think Joseph Smith was charismatic and visionary and bold and that he was also manipulative and subject to various weaknesses of the mind and flesh. I think the LDS church whitewashing of Joseph Smith has created a huge stumbling block for the church, as we see now with the scrambling of LDS apologetics to explain away the many contradictions of Joseph Smith’s life.
Here is the thing I wish the church leadership / historians would account for: Joseph Smith failed not once, not twice, but three times to create an enduring community of saints. That is an astounding track record of failure. Kirtland failed. Missouri failed. And then Nauvoo failed most tragically with Joseph Smith his brother Hyrum and soon after his brother Samuel all dead.
The LDS church simply ignores the wreckage of Joseph Smith’s leadership and that is unfair to church members and to church history.
I believe several things are simultaneously true about the early LDS church:
(1) Joseph Smith and key leaders were genuinely interesting in expanding their understanding of God and applying that knowledge to improve mankind
(2) Joseph Smith too often mixed religion with business and politics. We know from his own words that Joseph Smith was preoccupied with money. I don’t think he ever got over the expectation that wealth would make him powerful and free from financial worries. I think this preoccupation with money is embedded in the LDS religion – a thing I find fascinating as the modern LDS church has realized tremendous wealth and yet it seemingly has no clue what to do with it!
(3) Joseph Smith was unable to temper his spiritual enthusiasm & religious experimentation with the self discipline needed to be an effective leader. This created growing tensions that resulted in his demise in Nauvoo.
(4) The religious teachings of Smith and the church were extremely effective at giving believers a powerful sense of Divine purpose. This is where LDS critics so often miss the mark. Criticize Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and the religion all you want. How do you explain a people who proved so unflappable in the face of hardship and so industrious in building communities of Faith?
I have the sense that the current LDS leadership is interested in moving on from Joseph Smith and his contradictions. A significant action was eliminating church pageants, including the Palmyra: Book of Mormon pageant. We also have the banning of the term Mormon except in a few allowed instances – this censorship is a powerful tool for separating the current church from its past. We also have church leadership teaching that old teachings are always secondary to modern teachings – modern leaders can affirm old teachings but they can also replace them, as President Oaks has done with this opinions on the afterlife and judgment and marriage relationships, etc.
“I have the sense that the current LDS leadership is interested in moving on from Joseph Smith and his contradictions.”
I think the Community of Christ matches this statement much more. LDS aren’t interested in pointing out contradictions, true. I don’t see them moving on nearly as much as CoC.
Joseph Smith’s crowning achievement was the redemption of his family. Joseph Senior was a failed man. Instead of leading his family into greater financial security, they spiraled further into poverty. Without the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and founding of the Church, the Smith’s were bound for obscurity; “a hiss and a byword” in their time and like the vast majority of people who have ever lived on this world, totally forgotten in three generations. Joseph restored his father’s self-esteem, gave his family members a prominent place in the newly established church community, and through theological innovations, rescued his brother Alvin from hell. The Smith family have had and will continue to have a place not only in Church history but also in the wider American annals.
I don’t think that the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press is as big of a deal as current historians make it out to be. In our modern world the idea of destroying a printing press is a very serious act. But back then it wasn’t uncommon. It’s not hard to find similar judgements passed by other contemporaries or the generations leading up to that point.
When angry mobs destroyed printing presses owned by church members at the time, no one talks about how doing so was a grave mistake for the mobs.
Yes angry mobs destroyed church printing presses. It was illegal. But it was harder to find those responsible, especially from a government sympathetic to the mobs.
Joseph Smith used the city council to destroy the Expositor press. It was easy for authorities to charge Joseph with inciting a riot. They had a public record that the city council was doing was illegal. They evidence was much easier to trace, much easier to charge, and much easier to jail Joseph.
I’m with the historians on this. Open and shut case.