[toc]Last week I issued a challenge for people to find something in the Nauvoo Expositor which was a blatant lie about Joseph Smith. Doing so would support the claims made in a LDS primary manual that the Expositor told “many vicious lies” about Joseph. There have been several submissions of potential lies, several of which have been defended as actually being true. I will refer you to that post to read all about it.
There are still a few left for me to research, but one post in particular took a great deal of research to investigate and it turned up enough interesting tidbits that it was worth being its own separate post. I believe that I have defended the Expositor adequately to show that the claim made was not a lie but revealed some truth about how Joseph was handling finances in the church and how he held powerful control over the sale and purchase of land in the Nauvoo region were he had instructed the saints to gather. Read on for more!
The Claim
From Michael
“That, notwithstanding our extensive acquaintance with the financial affairs of the Church, we do not know of any property which in reality belongs to the Church (except the Temple) and we therefore consider the injunction laid upon the saints compelling them to purchase property of the Trustee in trust for the Church, is a deception practiced upon them: and that we look upon the sending of special agents abroad to collect funds for the Temple and other purposes as a humbug practiced upon the saints by Joseph and others, to aggrandize themselves, as we do not believe that the monies and property so collected, have been applied as the donors expected, but have been used for speculative purposes, by Joseph, to gull the saints the better on their arrival at Nauvoo, by buying the lands in the vicinity and selling again to them at tenfold advance; and further that we verily believe the appropriations said to have been subscribed by shares for the building of the Nauvoo House to have been used by J. Smith and Lyman Wight, for other purposes, as out of the mass of stock already taken, the building is far from being finished even to the base.”
My Response:
The statements in the Expositor which require validation around this submission are the following:
- Did Joseph Smith keep separate his own personal finances from that of the church? The Expositor’s assertion that it’s authors knew of no property, other than the Temple, that actually belonged to the church cannot be shown to be a lie, since it speaks to what the Author’s were aware of and this is not documentable. You can infer from this statement however that they believed that Joseph Smith did not distinguish between the property of the church and his own property. Is there any documentary evidence to support this assertion?
- Did Joseph Smith apply any compulsion upon the saints to only purchase property from himself, the trustee in trust of the church?
- The Expositor states that it’s view of the alleged misappropriation of funds donated for the purpose of the Temple, etc into land speculation is based on belief supported by circumstantial evidence (incomplete sate of temple construction), rather than direct evidence. As such it cannot be proven to be a lie. There are aspects of its statement that are presented as fact, however, and these can be investigated for any documentary evidence. Specifically, was land purchased around Nauvoo and sold at a tenfold advance?
Seperate Finances?
Did Joseph keep his own finances separate from those of the church?
It is the admission of current Apostle and former Utah supreme court justice Dallin H Oaks that early in the church there was no clear separation between the personal property of the leaders and the property of the church.
“During the first 2 years of the Mormon settlement in Nauvoo, the financial activities of the Church and the personal financial affairs of Joseph Smith were indistinguishable.”
(“Joseph Smith and Legal Process” Dallin H Oaks, Joseph I Bently, BYU Law Review vol 1976, issue 3, page 745)
Oaks goes on to detail how the church consolidated those who would accept monies or property for the church into the office of Trustee in Trust – the office of which Joseph Smith was the initial holder. This is reflected in the accounts recorded in the history of the church:
“[Sat 30 January 1841] At a special conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held at Nauvoo pursuant to public notice, I was unanimously elected sole Trustee-in-Trust for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
(History of the Church 4:286, byu.edu)
and:
“[31 August 1841]…voted unanimously, that we advise the trustee-in-trust to gather up all deeds, bonds, and properties belonging to the Church, and which are now held either by committees or individuals, and take the same in his own name as trustee-in-trust for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as soon as such arrangements can be made consistently with his various and multiplied cares and business; and that we individually and collectively will use all diligence to render him every assistance possible to accomplish this desirable object.”
(History of the Church 4:413, byu.edu)
There were rumors that Joseph Smith was enriching himself on the spoils of the church. In the same conference which gave him instruction to consolidate the property of the church, there was a resolution which gave official sanction to any of the actions that Joseph may have previously undertaken in disposing of church property according to his personal interests and those of his family and friends:
“Resolved, unanimously, that we deeply feel for our beloved President Joseph Smith, and his father’s family, on account of the great losses they have sustained in property by the unparalleled persecutions in Missouri, as well as the other many persecutions they have sustained since the rise of the Church, which has brought them to their present destitute situation. Therefore, voted unanimously, that we for ourselves, and the Church we represent, approve of the proceedings of President Smith, so far as he has gone, in making over certain properties to his wife, children, and friends for their support, and that he continue to deed and make over certain portions of Church property which now exist, or which may be obtained by exchange, as in his wisdom he shall judge expedient, till his own, and his father’s household, shall have an inheritance secured to them in our midst, agreeably to the vote of the general conference of the Church held at Commerce in October, 1839.”
(History of the Church 4:412, byu.edu)
This was a clear and unambiguous official statement which not only acknowledged that Joseph had been disposing of church property according to his personal disposition but also gave Joseph Smith as trustee in trust freedom to designate what ever properties he desires for the possession of himself and his father’s household. There was clearly substantial evidence for the assertion that Joseph Smith was treating Church Property as his own.
The personal possession of almost all property thought to belong to the church was actually determined legally when the courts got involved in resolving Joseph Smith’s debt’s after his death.
“…Judge Pope confirmed the Special Master’s findings of fact and decreed that all properties involved in this suit that had been held by Joseph Smith as trustee for the Church prior to or at the time of his death (all of which were in excess of the 10-acre limitation) were deemed by the law to be held in his personal capacity and therefore covered by the 1842 judgment lien.”
(“Joseph Smith and Legal Process” Dallin H Oaks, Joseph I Bently, BYU Law Review vol 1976, issue 3, page 777)
Oaks makes the case that this is only because of a technicality that Joseph was not aware of regarding limiting a church to the possession of 10 acres of land. His perspective clearly favors the church while the perspective of those who saw Joseph’s intermingling of personal and church finances to be problematic was supported by the legal finding.
Exclusive Seller?
Did Joseph say that Saints should only purchase property from himself?
See the Following from History of the Church:
“I spent the evening at Elder Orson Hyde’s. In the course of conversation I remarked that those brethren who came here having money, and purchased without the Church and without counsel, must be cut off. This, with other observations, aroused the feelings of Brother Dixon, from Salem, Massachusetts, who was present, and he appeared in great wrath.”
(History of the Church 5:272, byu.edu)
This is in conjunction with the following from an advertisement put out in the Nauvoo Neighbor by William Clayton, one of Joseph’s representatives:
“To Emigrants and Latter-Day Saints Generally: I feel it my duty to say … that there is in the hands of the trustee in trust, a large quantity of lands, both in the city and adjoining townships in this county, which is for sale, some of which belongs to the Church and is designed for the benefit of the poor, and also to liquidate debts owing to the Church, for which the trustee in trust is responsible. Some, also, is land which has been consecrated for the building of the Temple and the Nauvoo House. If the brethren who move in here and want an inheritance, will buy their lands of the trustee in trust, they will thereby benefit the poor, the Temple, and the Nauvoo House, and even then only will be doing that which is their duty, and which I know, by considerable experience, will be vastly for their benefit and satisfaction in days to come. Let all the brethren, therefore, when they move into Nauvoo, consult President Joseph Smith, the trustee in trust, and purchase their lands of him; and I am bold to say that God will bless them. …We hold ourselves ready at any time to wait upon the brethren and show them the lands … and can be found any day, either at President Joseph Smith’s bar-room, or the Temple Recorder’s office at the Temple.
(Nauvoo Neighbor 20 Dec, 1843, boap.org or archive.org)
Thus it is clearly documented that there was pressure applied to the Saints moving into the are to purchase land only from the Trustee in Trust of the church – Joseph Smith. Not only this, but on 5 March 1842 the office of Registrar of Deeds was created and Joseph Smith designated the registrar (JosephSmithPapers.org) meaning that any and all land purchases would have to be registered with his office – alerting him to any land purchased not from himself as trustee-intrust.
If you were a saint and wanted to buy land from someone other than Joseph Smith – he would know every detail of the transaction.
Significant Markup?
Was land purchased by Joseph Smith then sold at a ten-fold advance (speculation)?
First it should be made clear that speculation in and of itself is not inherently bad. Speculators assume a risk by investing their own money in the hopes of a future gain. This actually serves an important market function which can stabilize prices, provide liquidity and facilitate new ventures. (mises.org) There is always the chance that the investment will fail, however, and this is a risk that the speculator assumes and frequently succumbs to. In a free market where there are competing speculators, outrageous overpricing is minimized as the speculators must acknowledge the market options that their customers have and adjust prices accordingly. By using his ecclesiastical position to pressure members to purchase land from himself as trustee-in-trust Joseph Smith engaged in a gaming of the system which placed him at a non-market advantage over any competing land speculator. This is in direct opposition to a free market. His position as religious leader, civic leader, landholder and salesman and registrar of deeds is among the most one-sided arrangements that could be conceived in a period of history where religious conversion required gathering to the company of the saints at the frontier and the attendant land purchase required for living. Other land owners who were legitimate and honest businessmen would be justified in their indignation at Joseph’s mixing of civic and religious authority and any resentment they felt would be well founded in a society where principles of separation of Church and State (and economy) were held as ideals.
Did Joseph acknowledge that he was engaging in speculation in the first place? The answer is a resounding ‘yes’:
“…suppose I sell you land for $10 per acre & I gave 3. 4. 5. pr acre. then you are speculating says one. yes, I will tell you how. I buy others lands & give them to the widow & the fatherless.—”(Journal entry dated 13 April 1843, JosephSmithPapers.org)
The possibility that he would give free land to widows and orphans does not change the fact of his speculation. For example, if he gave undesirable lots which would not attract a significant purchase price away for free and then used that transaction to justify a tremendous markup on a desirable lot, then his assertion may not be considered as magnanimous as first assumed. Without such details, no judgement on the significance of his claims of gifting to the needy can be made. There is unverified evidence that he still was charging at least some widows for lots of land during this time period.
Was he inflating prices on some parcels of land to those who could afford it?
One of the largest purchases of land made by Joseph Smith was from Isaac Galland in the form of “twenty thousand acres, lying between the Mississippi and Des Moines rivers, at two dollars per acre” (History of the Church 3:260 archive.org). If you examine the deed books which record the actual transaction you find that 17,937.78 acres on the Iowa side of the Mississippi River was sold for the price of 49,662.26. This averages out to a price of $2.77 per acre (see this BYU Studies article, page 274). The terms of this transaction were very attractive to Joseph as the land could be occupied without raising cash, and the debt paid off later as farms became productive.
So with a purchase price of $2.77, how much was the land sold for? were any lots sold for a ten fold advance? It is recorded in the minutes of the High Council for 20 October 1839 that on sale of lots in Nauvoo “five hundred dollars be the average price of lots, i.e., none less than two hundred dollars, nor more than eight hundred dollars.” (History of the Church 4:17, archive.org) at this rate, the markup would be between 72 and 288 fold increase for those lots. There is a problem with this estimation though. The land on the Iowa side of the river was not considered “Nauvoo” proper (though it has been termed Nauvoo west). If we want to use the prices set by the High council, we have to compare it to purchase price of land in Nauvoo itself.
The first land purchase in what was then called Commerce Illinois was a 135-acre farm, from Hugh White for $5,000. This land included the log cabin that Joseph moved his family into in the south end of the peninsula and was part of the land considered Nauvoo proper. Those acres of land purchase for the stated amount comes to $37.04 per acre. Assuming the lots were 1 acre each (see here and here), this would make the markup for land prescribed by the High Council to be between 5 fold and 21 fold increase – well above the ten fold increase referred to in the Expositor.
Thus it is not considered a falsehood that Joseph may have sold lots at up to a 10 fold increase. As such, none of this submissions assertions of falsehood in the Expositor are substantiated and the Expositor is vindicated.
Conclusion
So in summary, Joseph’s personal finances were intermingled with church finances, he was given official approval by the twelve to take any church property for himself, he required members to buy land from him or else be cut off, he consolidated all church holdings to himself as trustee-in-trust, he made sure he would know if anyone bought land from anyone other than himself by becoming the registrar of deeds, and he got official sanction to sell some lots of land at a greater than tenfold markup. Wow. Not bad for an uneducated farm boy!
Stay tuned for investigation of the remaining claims. I predict that there will be a payout on one of the claims, but not for the reasons you might think!
I appreciate all of the work. Looking forward to more.
I agree that these claims may, in fact, be true. However, to my mind, the important thing here was to understand the motivation behind these transactions. Was Joseph trying to devise an economic system that would benefit him particularly, or was the true intent to create a welfare system, or perhaps a prototypical United Order? The fact that these claims are true on the surface, does not mean that they are not distortions of intent. It would be only natural for those disaffected to try to drum up feelings over something that most people, understanding the true objectives, would accept. Were there contemporary complaints from those who had been taken ‘advantage’ of?
On your primary thesis that the Expositor was essentially telling the truth, and that it’s destruction unwarranted; I think there can be no doubt if one accepts the LDS Church’s position that, in fact, Joseph was secretly living in polygamy, while publicly denouncing it. The alternate theory, which I cling to (despite it’s tenuous claims) is that Joseph may have actually been telling the truth about polygamy, even though others in high positions were practicing it. This theory has it that the claims of Joseph’s polygamy were actually fabricated later, by leaders of the Church after they arrived in Utah. If this theory was true, then, the Expositor could be seen, by Joseph at least, to have been telling lies. I’m still not sure that it gives license to destroy the property, but at least it is a possible explanation.
It seems clear to me that the owners of the Expositor were clearly victims, even if they knew that their actions would cause a firestorm, they were accurate in almost all of their claims, even if (as a possibility) they were mistaken in who, actually, was living in polygamy.
Hmm. I’m doing a little digging into your calculation of the markup. The Hugh White tract largely was not divided up into one-acre lots, but rather sold off in larger parcels. We also may need to think in terms of averages. A neighboring tract of 59 acres was purchased from Isaac Galland for $18,000, or about $300 per acre. So the markup on this tract was much smaller than on the Hugh White tract, and some of the difference averages out in the aggregate. On the other hand, the cost of the Galland tract may have been inflated because it also included ferry and hotel rights. Joseph made use of these rights for his own profit by building the Nauvoo House and legislating himself a monopoly in the ferry business.
I would love to see someone really do a detailed study of this question, and look at the actual prices of the various land tracts to figure out the individual and average markups. I suspect Joseph made a substantial profit on many of these transactions, but I’m a little skeptical of your estimate of a 5 to 21 times markup on the Hugh White tract. I’d feel more comfortable if we had a record of the actual purchase price for a lot on this tract, but even then I would also want to consider the overall averages.
It’s also worth noting that while the goal of distributing funds to the poor was admirable, this is how popular dictatorships work. The dictator makes himself the broker of charity, so that all gratitude for public welfare accrues to him. He acquires the status of patron to those he has helped, binding them with ties of personal obligation. He rewards loyalty by distributing benefits to loyal followers while withholding them from dissenters.