Joseph Smith’s arrest for treason in having the Nauvoo Expositor destroyed led to his death. He didn’t use habeas corpus to get out of this jam, and it cost him his life. Dr John Turner shares his reactions to Joseph’s life. Check out our conversation…
Don’t miss our other conversations with John: https://gospeltangents.com/people/john-turner/
Copyright © 2025
Gospel Tangents
All Rights Reserved
Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.
Recklessness, Revelation, and the Power of Habeas Corpus
Joseph Smith, a towering figure in American religious history, saw his life come to a dramatic and tragic end in June 1844. As discussed in this conversation with John Turner, author of “Joseph Smith: The Rise and Fall of an American Prophet,” the events leading up to his death reveal a complex interplay of political tension, legal maneuverings, and personal choices.
A Provocative Path to Disaster
The final six months of Joseph Smith’s life were marked by increasingly provocative and reckless actions. He engaged in unnecessary fights, denouncing and antagonizing men from the stand during meetings, almost as if “inviting opposition.” His rhetoric and one-on-one conversations with dissenters were “incautious.” While he was under an “incredible amount of stress” due to fears of enemies and potential execution, this stress often led him to respond in unconstructive ways.
A key event was the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper in May 1844. This act made him vulnerable to his enemies. While some historians like Michael Quinn have suggested the Council of Fifty minutes and negotiations with foreign nations were a bigger concern than polygamy charges in the Expositor, Joseph and his allies used “salty language” for various objections to the paper, including theological innovations, accumulation of political power, and polygamy. It wasn’t a single issue, and despite opponents like William Law finding it difficult to break with Joseph, his incendiary behavior prevented reconciliation.
Fateful Return to Nauvoo
When Governor Thomas Ford of Illinois sent a posse to arrest Joseph Smith in June 1844, Joseph initially fled across the Mississippi River, contemplating leaving Nauvoo and reuniting with his wife, Emma, elsewhere. He had a history of evading arrest. However, he ultimately chose to return to Nauvoo and go to Carthage to face charges related to the Nauvoo Expositor‘s destruction.
Later sources sometimes blame individuals, like Emma, for convincing him to return, not wanting him to abandon her and the family. However, a contemporary letter from Vilate Kimble states that Joseph “sought the will of the Lord and God told him to return.” This indicates Joseph believed his decision to return was a revelation.
The Power and Peril of Habeas Corpus
Joseph Smith’s experience with legal challenges, particularly his use of habeas corpus, is a significant aspect of his later life. Habeas corpus is a legal mechanism that gives an arrested individual an opportunity for a hearing on the legality of their arrest at the earliest stage of the process.
- Early, Legitimate Use:Joseph used habeas corpuseffectively to avoid arrest on Missouri charges. For example, when attempts were made to extradite him to Missouri starting around 1841 or 1842, he requested and was granted a writ of habeas corpus from a state judge. Stephen Douglas reportedly heard one such case and freed Joseph, ruling the arrest warrant invalid. This demonstrates how the power was “supposed to work.”
- Nauvoo’s Enhanced Powers:In 1842, the Nauvoo City Council began passing statutes that significantly enhanced its ability to issue writs of habeas corpus, aiming to protect Joseph Smith and other residents from arrest on anycharge – whether internal Nauvoo law, state law, or more serious offenses. Nauvoo’s own municipal court, over which Joseph, as mayor, could preside, would rule on the legality of his arrest. This made it “really easy for him to get off” and “justifiably made everybody angry.”
- Systemic Weakness:While this abuse of power was problematic, it doesn’t justify the anti-Mormon mob violence. The irony is that when Joseph didsubmit to arrest, a mob killed him, highlighting the “weakness of the legal and political system in Illinois in the early 1840s.” Ideally, a state court should have been able to challenge and invalidate Nauvoo’s claimed enhanced habeas corpus power, but this legal challenge never fully played out.
Prophet, Scoundrel, or Both?
John Turner’s overall impression of Joseph Smith is that of “a bit of both” – prophet and scoundrel. As a “religion maker and the forger of a tradition,” there is “a lot to admire,” and Turner personally enjoys elements of Joseph’s personality and finds many of his ideas “arresting.”
However, Joseph also exhibited “significant flaws,” sometimes treating close associates like Orson and Parley Pratt or Martin Harris with callousness and cruelty. Turner also expresses “serious reservations about the way that Joseph pursued plural marriage” and the treatment of individuals involved. While Joseph could be hospitable and charitable, he also had what Turner describes as “a touch of what I’d call megalomania” concerning his role in the grand order of things, his ability to pursue it, and his imperviousness to risk and danger. Turner generally avoids psychoanalyzing Joseph, noting the difficulty for historians to do so.
Ultimately, Joseph Smith remains a figure of immense historical importance, whose actions, choices, and the turbulent context of his time continue to be a subject of fascination and study.
How do you view Joseph Smith?
Don’t miss our other conversations with John: https://gospeltangents.com/people/john-turner/
Copyright © 2025
Gospel Tangents
All Rights Reserved
Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 0:31 — 585.9KB) | Embed
Subscribe: Email | | More
