Joseph's Swamp

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I also want to point out that this statement of Joseph Smith seems to contradict crocket's (and the other apologists whom I've discussed this with in the past) assertion - that the drainage of the swamp changed everything, and altered the land from a deathly sick hole to the healthiest land in Nauvoo -

I presume you are no stranger to the part of the city plat we bought of you being a deathly sickly hole, and that we have not been able in consequence to realize any valuable consideration from it, although we have been keeping up appearances, and holding out inducements to encourage immigration, that we scarcely think justifiable in consequence of the mortality that almost invariably awaits those who come from far distant parts (and that with a view to enable us to meet our engagements), and now to be goaded by you, for a breach of good faith, and neglect and dishonorable conduct, seems to me to be almost beyond endurance.

By his own admission, Joseph Smith (and others, the "we") were inducing immigrants to buy this land even though they KNEW it was scarcely "justifiable in consequence of the mortality that almost invariably awaits".

Joseph Smith was willing to knowingly endanger the lives of his followers for financial reasons. Of course, many other businessmen have done the same thing throughout the history of the world, but rarely in the name of the Lord.

I don't know the answer, but Crock may be right that circumstances had changed from the time of Joseph Smith's statement in 1841 to his statement in 1843, but I must admit the statement in his 1841 letter you bolded above sounds very unscrupulous.

[_Runtu]

I don't know the answer, but Crock may be right that circumstances had changed from the time of Joseph Smith's statement in 1841 to his statement in 1843, but I must admit the statement in his 1841 letter you bolded above sounds very unscrupulous.

I don't know what to make of this, either, and crock might well be right. But, yeah, it does seem to be a little suspect.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I checked Arrington's Great Basin Kingdom, and he doesn't mention this episode.

[_Some Schmo]

This may not help much, but I never did, and never could, buy into the "pious fraud" theory. "Fraud," yes; "pious," no.

Nope, me either. There's way too much smoke there to believe there's no fire.

[_Sethbag]

I think the letter is a smoking gun, really. In it, Joseph admits basically lying to people to induce them to immigrate and buy his land, in order to realize some kind of profit from his investment in the land. Whether the land later improved after enough people had moved there and drained it isn't really the point, if Joseph Smith was lying to them to get them to buy it from him, and if it was unhealthy for them when they got there. The point, as Beastie shows, is that Joseph Smith willfully deceived people, in the name of the Lord, regarding the merits of the land, in order to get gain.

[_beastie]

I agree that this is serious evidence in regards to evaluating Joseph Smith' moral character - how willing he was to lie, and for what purposes. I think it does not receive the attention it deserves, which is why I bring it up every now and then.

We already know he was willing to lie, due to his behavior in other instances. But the open question in those scenarios was how costly his lies were to others, and the underlying purpose of the lies. What is so damning about this:

although we have been keeping up appearances, and holding out inducements to encourage immigration, that we scarcely think justifiable in consequence of the mortality that almost invariably awaits those who come from far distant parts

is that he was well aware that the consequence of inducing people to immigrate to this land was invariably mortality.


Bob's reply here:

When Joseph Smith found himself unable to pay the debt, he described the property's drawbacks to obtain relief. He did so accurately But those drawbacks were relatively quickly erased with the effects of drainage.

doesn't address this point. At the same time period that Joseph Smith - accurately - depicted the land as a sickly death hole (and it doesn't matter that they didn't know what caused malaria, they still knew people were getting sick and dying on the land) - he was, by his own admission, still inducing immigration.

I've brought this up several times on several boards, and believers are very dismissive of the event. Apparently, it doesn't bother them that Joseph Smith lied to people to get them to buy land, knowing good and well that the land was a sickly death hole. DEATH HOLE.

This is the answer to the question someone asked earlier - is there anything Joseph Smith could have done that would persuade you he could not possibly be a prophet? The answer is nothing. Nothing would convince the True Believer that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet, even the fact that he - albeit indirectly - caused the deaths of his followers.

I know some of you have never believed the pious fraud theory. The main reason I have continued to consider it is due to the fact that I believe it is very likely Joseph Smith had bipolar. But I suppose having bipolar alone does not necessarily mean that Joseph Smith was a pious fraud, either. Of course, it is possible that the grandiosity of bipolar led him to mutually believe in his own prophetic calling and to also to have no regard for other human beings. In fact, when in the grips of mania, victims of bipolar usually have zero consideration for others in any way. But clearly he wasn't in the grip of an outright manic episode during most of his life - he was too coherent and deliberate. However, when people have long untreated bipolar, they tend to develop comorbid personality disorders, due to the chaos of their internal lives. So it's possible he suffered from bipolar, and in between episodes, suffered from narcissism and other dysfunctional coping mechanisms.

[_DonBradley]

Beastie,

I've been aware of Joseph Smith's statement "in the name of the Lord" for sometime, and of Van Wagoner's association of this part of town with the malarial swamp areas--which makes sense since the "lower" part of the town would be the part closest the river. What I was not aware of was Joseph Smith's letter referring to this same area--apparently--as a death hole.

How certain can we be that the areas referred to are one and the same? And how much had the swamp been drained in the intervening time, and to how much effect?

I already, because of other behaviors of his I can "observe" through the historical record, come to view Joseph Smith as a cynical user of religion, and--sadly--can believe he would manipulate people in the way described above. But it would be significant to see whether his cynical use of the name of the Lord here can be nailed down.

Thanks for sharing this, and let me know if you have or find further insight on the issue.

Don

[_DonBradley]

I believe Lyndon Cook has published a book of Nauvoo death records (as well as one of Nauvoo marriage records). If the death records indicate the Nauvoo City ward in which each death occurred, it may be possible to assess the mortality rates in different sections of the city.

I know Nauvoo swamps were drained, but I really don't know with what success, nor exactly where Joseph Smith's lower-city properties were located. The devil, or angel, here is the details. We'd have to be able to assess whether this lower-city area was still clearly more dangerous than the upper city.

by the way, Rcrocket, what you've said is interesting, but, as Beastie has indicated, mere assertion till you offer documentation. I'd like to explore the issue further, so please do lay out your sources.

Don

[_William Schryver]

Apparently none of you have been to Nauvoo, otherwise you would have already realized the baseless nature of these insinuations against Joseph Smith. You see, this theory comes up against the reality that Joseph Smith himself, as well as Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and many of the leading figures of the church in Nauvoo, all made their residence in the lower part of Nauvoo, Joseph’s houses being nearer the river than all the rest.

While the swampy bottoms were initially viewed with disdain by the early settlers, once it was drained it became highly desirable real estate, as evidenced by those who chose to live there.

[_beastie]

Don,

I'm trying to remember where I read about the conflict over real estate in Nauvoo - the bottomland was purchased by Joseph Smith and others, while the upper lands were purchased by other individuals. It caused conflict when Joseph Smith used his religious influence to try and get immigrants to buy bottom land rather than upper land, and, If I recall correctly, caused some apostasy. I'm looking through my books to try and find where I read that, perhaps it could offer more details.

There are really two issues that ought to be separated out - the first is that in the August 25, 1841 letter Joseph Smith admitted to trying to persuade immigrants to buy land on what he knew to be a sickly death hole. To evaluate the morality if this act, no more information is necessary, because of this admission. We know that Joseph Smith was willing to endanger the lives of immigrants for financial reasons.

The second issue is when he used the "name of the Lord" to tell immigrants, in 1843, that the bottomland was the healthiest. This is where we need more information. If I find anything else, I'll let you know. I'll look up Cook's book.

So really, for me, the sole question is whether Joseph Smith was willing to use "the name of the Lord" and his influence as prophet to do what we already know he was otherwise willing to do - influence people to buy certain land, despite the fact that health problems were known to occur there. We can't tell from his letter to Hotchkiss whether he was using his religious influence to persuade immigrants to buy land in the sickly death hole. Given how everything Joseph Smith did was based on his religious influence, I think it's safe to assume he was, but it is an assumption.

Just based on logic, I find it unlikely that the bottom land was able to transform, in less than two years, from a sickly death hole to the healthiest land, particularly considering the above citation I linked that stated malaria (or fever or ague) remained a problem for many years. Certainly draining the swamp would result in improvement, but to improve so much that it was now healthier than the upper lands? I'm skeptical.

I once found some dates for the draining of the Nauvoo swamp, and now seem to have lost it. If I recall correctly, the swamp was drained prior to his 1841 letter to Hotchkiss.