To watch this video on YouTube, click HERE.
Video transcript:
Comedian and popular podcaster Mark Gagnon recently published a video about the history of Joseph Smith and Mormonism on his channel, Religion Camp. In this video, we’re going to talk about 3 things he got right and 5 things he got wrong.
Now, here’s the deal: I think Mark generally did a great job. You can tell that he is dedicated to being kind and respectful. It’s pretty clear that he doesn’t believe in Latter-day Saint truth claims, but it also didn’t seem like he was actively trying to tear them down. I’d give him a 90-95% accuracy score, and I don’t want our emphasis here on the stuff he got wrong to give the impression that he got a lot wrong.
So let’s start with the things I think he got right:
Number 1: Joseph Smith and polygamy. Yes, you heard that right. Let’s watch a clip. OK, so obviously he’s joking around a bit at the expense of women, but what I liked about his approach was that he acknowledges that if Joseph Smith were just after sexual gratification, there would have been other, easier ways of accomplishing that. The historical LDS practice of polygamy came with responsibility. It wasn’t just a series of one-night stands; it was commitment. This was something that polygamy expert Brittany Chapman Nash emphasized in our recent interview. I’m not at all saying that polygamy isn’t problematic in a lot of ways, but I appreciated that Mark cut through a lot of the sensationalism in his brief remarks on this.
Number 2: Using the full name of the Church has been a big deal among Latter-day Saints in recent years. It’s not as big a deal to a lot of non-members, but the fact that Mark took the time to accurately flesh out this subject shows me that he’s trying to be respectful and trying to understand. And I think he nailed this one.
Number 3… we’re going to save until the end, so hang tight.
Now, let’s talk about some of the things he got wrong, starting with treasure digging:
OK, so he gets the culture of treasure-digging pretty correct. This was not a dark, nefarious practice. This was just folk-Christianity. What I do take issue with is the scope of the Smith family’s involvement. It was something they were involved in, but I see little evidence to suggest, as Mark claims, that Joseph Sr. had the family moving away from farming until treasure hunting became their primary source of income. I’m not sure what his source was, if any, for this claim, but the Smiths were primarily farmers. They built their farm in Palmyra from nothing. They did have to hire out as day laborers whenever they could to help pay for the farm. Treasure-hunting was one of those side-gigs, but to my knowledge, it was never their primary source of income. Joseph Sr.’s wife, Lucy, even wrote in her memoir, after describing all of the work they put into the farm,
“…let not my reader suppose that because I shall pursue another topic for a season that we stopt our labor and went at trying to win the faculty of Abrac[.] drawing Magic circles or sooth saying to the neglect of all kinds of buisness[.] we never during our lives suffered one important interest to swallow up every other obligation….”
Smith was arrested in 1826 and charged with necromancy, which is to raise or speak to the dead.
OK, so there’s a lot going on here that we need to untangle. Did enemies of Joseph Smith call him a necromancer? Yes, absolutely. They called him… a lot of things. Was Joseph ever arrested and charged with necromancy? As far as I have been able to discover, no. Mark doesn’t cite a source for that claim. I asked him for the source, which he kindly said he’d give me, but then I never heard back. I asked an expert, and he’d never heard this claim. I don’t even think you could specifically be charged with “necromancy” at that time.
I assume that Mark is probably conflating vague necromancy rumors with Joseph’s 1826 trial and charge for being a “disorderly person” after some people thought he was using treasure-digging to cheat people out of money. We don’t know for sure what the result of that trial was. I think he was acquitted, but that’s a story for another time.
But instead of associating the necromancy claim with treasure-hunting, Mark specifically ties it to Alvin Smith. So the history he’s probably referring to is this: The angel Moroni told Joseph to bring Alvin with him when he would later collect the golden plates. Unfortunately, Alvin died before that could happen. The next year, in 1824, for some reason, rumors started circulating that Alvin’s body had been disturbed in some way. Some might have thought that Joseph still needed Alvin’s body in order to retrieve the plates, but interestingly, I haven’t actually been able to find that claim from any contemporary sources. But whether to quell that rumor or to just ensure that the grave hadn’t been robbed, Joseph Sr. actually had Alvin’s body exhumed just a few days after Joseph’s unsuccessful 1824 attempt to get the plates. He published this notice in the local newspaper, which you can pause and read, affirming that Alvin’s body had not been disturbed, and that people needed to chill the heck out.
There’s more we could say about this, but hopefully that context is helpful.
About the big battle and the Hill Cumorah:
Early Latter-day Saints didn’t start to call the New York hill where Joseph Smith retrieved the plates “Hill Cumorah” until the mid-1830s — before even Joseph Smith called it that. It was probably based on a misreading or misunderstanding of Mormon 6:6 — point being, Book of Mormon geography doesn’t match up with the New York location, there’s no evidence of a massive battle, and Mormon 6 suggests that the Book of Mormon Cumorah wasn’t where the plates were ultimately buried. Thus, this Cumorah probably isn’t that Cumorah.
About a multi-year translation process:
OK, so he’s not technically wrong here, but he portrays the translation of the Book of Mormon as a multi-year process. The translation did indeed begin in April of 1828, but then the partially-completed manuscript was lost. Virtually everything in the published Book of Mormon we have today was translated between April and the end of June 1829. John Welch found that the translation was probably completed within about 60 full-time working days. To be able to dictate a text as complex as the Book of Mormon within that time period, all while looking at a rock in a hat in front of witnesses without significant revisions — that’s absolutely insane, and I wish that Mark had called more attention to that. It really is one of the biggest questions for critics — how did Joseph Smith produce this, and is there evidence that actually supports those critical theories? Food for thought.
On why did Moroni take the plates back?:
So, the Book of Mormon actually tells us why Moroni took the plates back. In 2 Nephi 27 we read, “Wherefore, when thou hast read the words which I have commanded thee, and obtained the witnesses which I have promised unto thee, then shalt thou seal up the book again, and hide it up unto me, that I may preserve the words which thou hast not read, until I shall see fit in mine own wisdom to reveal all things unto the children of men.” Part of the golden plates was sealed shut. They were turned back over to Moroni in order to preserve and protect that portion. You can say Joseph lied and just never had plates, but this is the explanation the Book of Mormon gives for why we don’t have them now.
Of course, this verse also talks about witnesses of the plates. Mark lightly talks about the Book of Mormon witnesses, but this is a hugely important part of the story that I wish he had spent more time on — especially considering the title of his video. You can’t talk about whether or not the plates were real without talking about the 11 official witnesses who claimed to actually see and, in some cases, handle them. We’re not just trusting Joseph’s word on this; we have other fantastic witnesses who testified that they were real. If nothing else, their testimonies significantly complicate any naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon that critics might come up with. You have to explain what these witnesses saw and why they would have reaffirmed that testimony through thick and thin throughout the rest of their lives.
OK, so, we covered the corrections I wanted to mention, but let’s get to the last thing that I think Mark did really well. Overall, it wasn’t perfect, but it could have been a lot, lot worse, and all doctrine aside, I appreciate the shoutout he was able to give our people and our missionaries. I couldn’t agree more. If you want to see a review of a video about Joseph Smith that was much less responsible, go check out this video, and I will see you there!