Did William Law try to kill Joesph Smith?

[_Sammy Jankins]

The slide has been updated on the Deseret News:

"Apostate William Law attempted to kill Joseph and fired a pistol at him six times at close range. It misfired six times, and he then pointed it at a post and all six shots discharged properly."

Stoddard, Charles H. 1949. In Hannah R. Stoddard, "Hannah Rebecca Larson Stoddard, Affidavit, Oct. 15, 1949," LDS Church Archives

Found in "Remembering Joseph" by Mark L. McConkie, 73-74

Cited in "500 Little-Known Facts about Joseph Smith," 139

Editor's note: This slide has been updated to include additional details about the source material.

[_Sammy Jankins]

Commenting on the update:

I think it is problematic when you have a forged journal to rely on a affidavit that came later. I believe it came later because the journal only mentions a single shot, while the affidavit has the six shots. I'm assume that it went from one shot to six shots, because six is a better story. Also in the BYU devotional Robert Daines said

The Prophet Joseph was a great exemplar, not only of this principle but also of having total faith and confidence in the promises of the Lord. I should like to share with you an entry from the diary of my great-great grandmother. This is a record of a little-known experience of the Prophet Joseph—little known because this diary was lost for 30 to 40 years in my mother’s home in New Jersey. It was only rediscovered as they were preparing to move back to Utah in the late 1970s. This is a diary entry of Sister Sarah Stoddard. Her son Charles, my great-grandfather, as a boy of 14, was asked by the Prophet Joseph to serve as a houseboy for William Law, an enemy of the Prophet, and to inform him of any of the Laws’ devious plans. It was, I guess, an early form of counterintelligence.

So you have the problem of someone (probably in the family) committing a forgery, in order to lend credibility to a story. Then, probably decades later, a couple of those family members sign an affadavit with an even better story. I know this was probably supposed to be a quick puff piece for the Deseret News, but you can't just throw the affidavit source in and call it good.

I think they should at least explain to readers why they added an additional source, and why they think the affadavit is sufficient evidence it happened.

[_I have a question]

I think we can safely conclude that "fact checking" is considered an unnecessary expense at Deseret News

[_Chap]

Look at the way that this pretty obviously made-up miracle story is propagating, even under circumstances where anybody willing to be a little critical can see how obviously made-up it is. Yes - God protected the prophet by a miracle! (Because that is clearly how people will interpret this story).

Then ask yourself - if this can happen with the information resources of the 21st century at our command, how easy was it for stories about Jesus doing miracles - from healing the sick to walking on water and multiplying loaves and fishes - to propagate and get 'improved' in the circumstances of the first century CE?

The important thing, if you want to start a new religion, is not to DO miracles (if that was the condition, there would be no new religions) but to be the kind of person who is SAID to do miracles. Once you can get that going, the miracle stories will come by a process of spontaneous generation, and believers will work hard to improve them and pass them on. They just can't get enough of them.

[_grindael]

Thanks Grindael that certainly adds to the bigger picture.

Forgive my ignorance, but was signing an affidavit like that a common thing to do?

No. But Mormons did a lot of them, especially to try and verify Smith's polygamy (1869). Affidavits were common in the Nauvoo Era though. Smith had people swearing out affidavits right and left.

[Guest]

Look at the way that this pretty obviously made-up miracle story is propagating, even under circumstances where anybody willing to be a little critical can see how obviously made-up it is. Yes - God protected the prophet by a miracle! (Because that is clearly how people will interpret this story).

Then ask yourself - if this can happen with the information resources of the 21st century at our command, how easy was it for stories about Jesus doing miracles - from healing the sick to walking on water and multiplying loaves and fishes - to propagate and get 'improved' in the circumstances of the first century CE?

The important thing, if you want to start a new religion, is not to DO miracles (if that was the condition, there would be no new religions) but to be the kind of person who is SAID to do miracles. Once you can get that going, the miracle stories will come by a process of spontaneous generation, and believers will work hard to improve them and pass them on. They just can't get enough of them.

This is exactly the problem.
Multiple repetitions along a chain ensure that the original happening becomes embellished.
Jesus may well have simply shared a sandwich with a couple of people sat on a bench with him. One of those people goes home and tells his wife about Jesus sharing his food. He likes the guy so he ups the anti by saying Jesus shared his sandwich with five people and still have some for himself, what a guy. She goes to the market the next day and relates the event in increasingly miraculous tones, there were twenty men and it was a sandwich and some fish. Eventually a writer in the pub overhears the rebelling of the miracle of loaves and fishes by some guy named Jesus. 'Holy Christ' he thinks, 'what a great story' and tootles off home to write it up.

Bible stories are whatever it was the writer wanted to portray, not necessarily what actually happened. It's the same today. Documentaries, biographies, films based on true events etc. All embellishments based on the agenda of the film maker, documentarian or author.

[_grindael]

Nevo,

I go into the Dennison Harris story in detail in our upcoming polygamy essay, and William Law. More than 20 pages of material. It's interesting. Hales quotes the entire Dennison Harris story in his Polygamy Books. It is so obviously fraudulent that it is unbelievable to me that any credible historian could believe it.

[_grindael]

For example Harris claimed that over 200 people met at William Law's house at a secret meeting and signed an oath to kill Joseph. That is where they almost were murdered, they claim. But if you look up where Law lived, he owned the property right next to Joseph's! Right in front of the Red Brick Store. Hilarious.