Joseph's Swamp

[_beastie]

What you all are doing is taking the letter and even excerpts of his letters out of context. It is just as I said. Beastie does this in her OP where she posts the Hotchkiss letter dated 1841 and then the comment about the location being healthful and uses that as some sort of evidence that Joseph was lying in 1843 when what she has done is ignore that the letters are 2 years apart and the land, by then, was indeed healthful.

Now it's my turn to assert that you have not read my posts. I have consistently noted the dates and also noted that there are two issues involved:

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've been using the term "two years later", but technically, it was 20 months later. 20 months for such a miraculous transformation, from the sickly death hole to the healthiest land in the area.

Neither Bob nor Jersey Girl have provided evidence to support their assertion that this transformation did, indeed, take place. I provided contemporary evidence that stated the illnesses continued.

[_beastie]

We also have evidence from an earlier episode that Joseph Smith was quite willing to lie to his followers for his own goals. Of course we know from his polygamous practices that he was willing to lie, but this is not the only evidence. There is also the Kirtland banking fiasco, in which Joseph Smith misled the Saints in regards to the viability of the bank. I'll come back later with specific examples of that.

[_Chap]

We also have evidence from an earlier episode that Joseph Smith was quite willing to lie to his followers for his own goals. Of course we know from his polygamous practices that he was willing to lie, but this is not the only evidence. There is also the Kirtland banking fiasco, in which Joseph Smith misled the Saints in regards to the viability of the bank. I'll come back later with specific examples of that.

And in general pretty well every aspect of Joseph Smith's career (and certainly the totality of it) is much, much easier to make sense of on the assumption that he was a man who lied so often, about so many things and to so many people, that even he himself was no longer certain of what was truth and what was fiction.

The great thing about Joseph Smith, as opposed to so many other 'great religious leaders' of the past is that he is close enough to our own age for us to be able to have very little doubt that he was a fraud, through and through.

[_Sethbag]

What you all are doing is taking the letter and even excerpts of his letters out of context. It is just as I said. Beastie does this in her OP where she posts the Hotchkiss letter dated 1841 and then the comment about the location being healthful and uses that as some sort of evidence that Joseph was lying in 1843 when what she has done is ignore that the letters are 2 years apart and the land, by then, was indeed healthful.

Jersey Girl, in my own post I was not talking about the 1843 letter at all. What I'm commenting on is strictly limited to what was in the 1841 letter.

Joseph Smith reminds Hotchkiss that the land was a deathly sickhole.

Joseph Smith tells Hotchkiss that he is "keeping up appearances" and offering "inducements" that he scarcely thinks justifiable in light of the fact that people moving onto that land end up dead. Tell me this, Jersey Girl. What inducements did Joseph Smith think "scarcely justifiable" that he offered to people moving into Nauvoo?

If you make a claim to someone, as part of trying to sell them something, and you know that the claim is actually insupportable, and likely wrong, is that not dishonest? Are you not in effect lying to them?

How can you regard Joseph Smith convincing people to buy his land with reasons and explanations which he himself admits are "scarcely justifiable" and that doesn't count as lying?

If what you're looking for is someone who shoots at anything that is Joseph Smith, you're looking at the wrong person to do it.

I don't expect anyone to just go off on Joseph Smith for the hell of it. In this letter, in his own words, Joseph Smith does a pretty good job of damning himself, if you ask me.

What "inducements" did he offer to immigrants?

Well that's the $64 question, isn't it? I don't happen to know, but whatever the inducements were, Joseph Smith knew that they were "scarcely justifiable". Are you second-guessing Joseph Smith in his own estimation? If Joseph Smith says that the inducements he offered to incoming immigrants to buy his land were "scarcely justifiable", and offered in full and plain knowledge that "mortality" inevitably awaited the purchaser, on what grounds do you disagree here?

Either the land was actually a lot better, the "sickly death hole" problem had been resolved, and the Joseph Smith was lying to Hotchkiss, hiding the information that would have affected Hotchkiss' opinion in the matter, or the land still was a "sickly death hole", and Joseph Smith's inducements were made to the immigrants in full knowledge of the likely hazard to their lives of doing so, and knowing his inducements were dishonest, ie: "scarcely justifiable". Like I said in my previous post, take your pick. But one way or the other, Joseph was lying.

[_KimberlyAnn]

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.

Bill,

I visited Nauvoo about 2 years ago and went through the history lesson in the visitor's center.

Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the river has reclaimed a goodly portion of the lower lying parcels and are pretty much permanently under water. What you see that remains is the more part of the upper. I was under the impression that the Smith home/mansion, the GA's properties were on the upper part of Nauvoo on or near the main street (though the temple is yet 300+ feet higher atop the hill).

Had I not gone through the presentation (like you must not have), I would have assumed the Smith's properties had always been nearly at the waters edge.

Even if the lower portions were most suitable for farming, they certainly are and never will be more "Healthful" to humans than those on the upper portions.

Inconceivable,

I took the tour at Nauvoo about five years ago, and was told the same thing you were: The river has shifted course and expanded, reclaiming a large part of what were the lower parcels of Nauvoo. Smith's home was nearly on the main street, as I recall, and would not originally have been near the river as it is now.

KA

[_beastie]

Bob,

Thanks for telling me which pages of Flander's book dealt with the issue, I was able to read them on amazon.

The authority that Joseph Smith cited to reassure saints that the land was safe was John Bennet. We all know how reliable and trustworthy he turned out to be. :O

The following summer, 1840, the epidemic was worse; many died, and few escaped the ravages of the fever. Smith was worried about the situation, but hoped things would be better in the future. In his "Proclamation" of January 1841, advertising Nauvoo to the church, he said, "The place has been objected to by some on account of the sickness that has prevailed in the summer months, but it is the opinion of Dr. (John C.) Bennett that Hancock County, and all the eastern and southern portions of Nauvoo, are as healthful as any other portions of the western country, to acclimatized citizens; while the northwestern portion of the city has sufferedm much affliction from fever and ague, which, however, Dr. Bennett thinks can be easily remedied by draining the sloughs on the adjacent islands of the Mississippi." But in the summer of 1841 the disease was calamatous. The dead included recent gatherers and first settlers alike. The Prophet mourned the loss of his close friend and personal secretary, Robert B. Thompson, his father, the Patriarch of the church, and his youngest brother Don Carlos. So many died that Sidney Rigdon preached a "general funeral sermon" for them all. Said the prophet sadly in a letter to Horace Hotchkiss, "As to the growth of the place, it is very rapid, and would be more so, were it not for sickness and death. There have been many deaths, which leaves a melancholy reflection, but we cannot help it." (73)

(Joseph Smith's History 4:178, 268)

[_karl61]

you just need a good filter for John C. Bennett. A lot of what he said was later found to be correct: Without spelling out the full names, he gave certain letters of Joseph Smiths alleged wives in Nauvoo which later proved to be true when the wives sign affidavits in Utah.

[_Jersey Girl]

Sethbag

Either the land was actually a lot better, the "sickly death hole" problem had been resolved, and the Joseph Smith was lying to Hotchkiss, hiding the information that would have affected Hotchkiss' opinion in the matter, or the land still was a "sickly death hole", and Joseph Smith's inducements were made to the immigrants in full knowledge of the likely hazard to their lives of doing so, and knowing his inducements were dishonest, ie: "scarcely justifiable". Like I said in my previous post, take your pick. But one way or the other, Joseph was lying.

The land, so far as I can tell, was still a sickly death hole when the 1841 letter was written. Again, the entire letter was a business maneuver. There are other communications between Joseph and Hotchkiss that expressed a congenial relationship. Do you honestly think that Joseph or Hotchkiss gave a damn about each other? I sure don't. They were both business men, attempting to conduct the "art of the deal". That's how it worked back then and how it works now.

My apologies to Mr. Trump.

[_Jersey Girl]

beastie

I've been using the term "two years later", but technically, it was 20 months later. 20 months for such a miraculous transformation, from the sickly death hole to the healthiest land in the area.

Neither Bob nor Jersey Girl have provided evidence to support their assertion that this transformation did, indeed, take place. I provided contemporary evidence that stated the illnesses continued.

No, it wasn't a 20 months later "miraculous transformation". It took years to drain the swamp. Now back to the beginning:

1839: Land was purchased and part of the parcel is described as wetlands/marsh
1841: Letter to Hotchkiss attempting to deflect an interest payment
1843: Comments regarding the healthful nature of the area

That's 5 summers, beastie. Not a 20 month miraculous recovery of the land.

The key, beastie, in figuring out the timeline (from what evidence that I think is available) is in the reports of malaria outbreaks. When they were at their height and when they abated. I can find no other dates for the onset of the drainage efforts or dates for completion. The land, so far as I can tell, was in a constant state of development the entire time and thereafter.

According to what I've read, the outbreaks took place during the first 3 summers in Nauvoo.

[_beastie]

It is a twenty month period between the date when Joseph Smith described the land as a sickly death hole, and between the time he assured the saints it was the healthiest land in the name of the Lord.

You seem to discount his descriptions by emphasizing it was a business manuever, which is why I earlier misinterpreted your comments. The land was a sickly death hole at the time Joseph Smith wrote his letter to Mr. Hotchkiss. So the two questions that remain are:

1) what inducements did Joseph Smith utilize to encourage saints to settle on that land prior to his Hotchkiss letter referencing such inducements

2) just how much was the land improved, in terms of health risk, by the time Joseph Smith was telling new settlers "in the name of the Lord" that it was the healthiest land in 1843, 20 months later