Church History

The following comes from Daniel C. Peterson’s blog, “Sic et Non” on Patheos. To visit his blog, CLICK HERE.

The jumping-off point for our Elders Quorum meeting today, taught by our former bishop, was the late Elder Jeffrey R. Holland’s address at the last October general conference, “And Now I See.”  As always, it was a memorable talk, and I, along with hundreds of thousands if not millions of others, was moved by his fervent testimony.  He used an incident from the ninth chapter of John as the centerpiece for his remarks, and I excerpt some of the verses from that chapter here below.  The incident, well known among missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the theological answers that it suggests, involves the Savior’s healing of a man who had been blind since birth, which transpired as follows:

When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.  The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?  Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.  Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?  He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight. . . .

They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet. . . .  Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.  He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.  (John 9:6-11, 17, 24-25)

There is a very great deal that could be profitably said about this passage (including the verses that I’ve omitted here).  One thing of note is the humble material means that Jesus used for the miracle: dirt mixed with spit.  I’ve been to Siloam, which is located in East Jerusalem, in the modern Arab district of Silwan (سلوان), more times than I can count.  The water of the pool is mundane water, the dirt is mundane dirt, and I suppose that the saliva was entirely mundane, as well.  There are obvious lessons to be drawn from the story about how the Lord uses ordinary means (and ordinary people) to achieve his purposes.

The brother sitting immediately to my left observed how interesting it is that while his enemies would spit upon him to humiliate him (as at Matthew 26:67-68, Mark 14:65, and Luke 22:63-65) — compare Isaiah 5):6: “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting” — the Savior used spittle as a vehicle for healing.

In thinking about the story told in John 9, I found myself thinking about some exceptionally nasty and insulting characterizations of the Prophet Joseph Smith that I happen to have seen online over the past two or three days.  (It seems ridiculous that I need to say it — although, with some disingenuous folks, it’s also probably futile to say it — but I am not equating Joseph Smith with the Savior here.). I’m familiar, of course, with attacks on the Prophet’s character, and have been familiar with them for decades, but I’ve seen an unusual number of them lately, and my response might run somewhat along the lines of that given by the formerly blind man in John 9:

He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

Immediately next, I thought of an 1856 remark by President Brigham Young:

I recollect a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend of ours, before I was personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to rail against “Joe Smith,” saying, “that he was a mean man, a liar, money digger, gambler, and a whoremaster;” and he charged him with everything bad, that he could find language to utter. I said, hold on, brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can. As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor’s wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it. (Journal of Discourses 4:78)

Now, please note that Brigham Young wasn’t admitting such behavior on the part of Joseph Smith; at the time of the conversation with “brother Gillmore,” Brigham said, he had not even met the Prophet — which puts the conversation very early, probably no later than autumn of 1832.  Later, of course, Brigham Young came to know Joseph exceptionally well, and here’s what he had to say about his experience with the Prophet, as reported at Journal of Discourses 9:332:

Who can justly say aught against Joseph Smith? I was as well acquainted with him, as any man. I do not believe that his father and mother knew him any better than I did. I do not think that a man lives on the earth that knew him any better than I did; and I am bold to say that, Jesus Christ, excepted, no better man ever lived or does live upon this earth. I am his witness.

I feel like shouting hallelujah, all the time, when I think that I ever knew Joseph Smith, the Prophet whom the Lord raised up . . .  and to whom He gave keys and power to build up the kingdom of God on the earth and sustain it” (Journal of Discourses 3:51)

Dean Jessee, who essentially founded the Joseph Smith Papers project, passed away on the very last day of 2025:   “Church historian Dean Jessee — the ‘founding father’ of ‘The Joseph Smith Papers’ project — dies at age 96: Latter-day Saint historian Dean Jessee was a ‘humble, dedicated disciple of Christ,’ his longtime colleague Ronald Esplin says”

Brother Jessee’s work had a specific and around impact on me:  I think that his two-volume edition of The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith and, now, the much larger Joseph Smith Papers project, have set out clearly the true character of the Prophet, and I commend these two brief articles, written by the estimable Jacob Hess, to your attention:

“Understanding Joseph Smith through the eyes of those who knew him: ‘A plain, sensible, strong-minded man’: The people who knew the Prophet best describe his goodness, integrity”

“Historians shed light on Joseph Smith’s integrity: Historians who have studied the entirety of Joseph Smith’s life are speaking about his character as a husband, father and religious leader”

This strikes me as quite significant, since the three basic options for explaining Joseph Smith seem to be, using the appropriate technical terminology, as follows:

1. He was lying.
2. He was nuts.
3. He was telling the truth.

But option 1 appears to be incompatible with the historical evidence and option 2 has no real evidence to support it.  Now what?