By Jerald and Sandra Tanner
Since printing the book, Changes in Joseph Smith’s History, we have received new information which may be of interest to our readers.
In change number 464 (Changes in Joseph Smith’s History, page 87) we show that many words [in bold] have been deleted concerning the story of Joseph Smith’s death. In the History of Joseph Smith, as published in the Millennial Star, the following appeared:
. . . he fell outward into the hands of his murders, exclaiming, “O Lord my God!” He fell partly on his right shoulder and back, his neck and head reaching the ground a little before his feet, and he rolled instantly on his face.
From this position he was taken by a man who was barefoot and bareheaded, and having on no coat, his pants rolled up above his knees, and his shirt sleeves above his elbows. He set Joseph against the south side of the well curb, which was situated a few feet from the jail, when Col. Levi Williams ordered four men to shoot him. They stood about eight feet from the curb, and fired simultaneously. A slight cringe of the body was all the indication of pain visible when the balls struck him, and he fell on his face.
The ruffian who set him against the well curb now gathered a bowie-knife for the purpose of severing his head from his body. He raised the knife, and was in the attitude of striking, when a light, so sudden and powerful, burst from the heavens upon the bloody scene (passing its vivid chain between Joseph and his murderers), that they were struck with terror. This light, in its appearance and potency, baffles all powers of description. The arm of the ruffian that held the knife fell powerless, the muskets of the four who fired fell to the ground, and they all stood like marble statues, not having the power to move a single limb of their bodies.
The retreat of the mob was as hurried and disorderly as it possibly could have been. Col. Williams Hallooed to some who had just commenced their retreat to come back and help to carry off the four men who fired, and who were still paralized. They came and carried them away by main strength to the baggage waggons, when they fled towards Warsaw.
Dr. Richards’ escape was miraculous; . . . (Millennial Star, vol. 24, page 487)
When this was reprinted in the History of the Church, vol. 6, pages 618-619, three hundred and seven words were deleted:
. . . he fell outward into the hands of his murderers, exclaiming. “O Lord, my God!”
Dr. Richards’ escape was miraculous; . . .
After telling of this change we made this statement:
Apparently the Mormon Historians felt that this story was too unbelievable; therefore it was deleted.
At the time we statement we did not realize that the Mormon Historian B. H. Roberts had repudiated this story in his Comprehensive History of the Church (this is not to be confused with the History of the Church mentioned above which was edited by B. H. Roberts). In the Comprehensive History of the Church B. H. Roberts stated:
It was inevitable, perhaps, that something miraculous should be alleged as connected with the death of Joseph Smith; that both myth and legend, those parasites of truth, should attach themselves to the Prophet’s career. . . . Hence we have the legend of the body dragged to a sitting posture by the old well curb by the Missouri ruffian . . . the effort to behead the Prophet by the same person; the flash of heavenly light from the clear sky that paralyzed the arm of the would-be mutilator of the dead; and also paralyzing four other persons detailed by Captain Levi Williams to shoot the Prophet after he was set up by the well curb—paralyzed so that they stood like marble statues having no power to move a single limb and had to be carried away in their helpless condition by their companions! . . . Of course this whole fabric of myth and legend comes from the story of Daniels and Brackenbury, and has, unfortunately, found its way into some of our otherwise acceptable church works, and still more unfortunately has entered into the beliefs of many Latter-day Saints.
. . . Ford says that Daniels was “afterwards expelled from the Mormons, but no doubt they will cling to his evidence in favor of the divine mission of the Prophet.” It was for the refutation of the governor’s supposition that this paragraph, in part, is written.
. . . the great, determining facts of “Mormonism” rest on no such questionable witnesses as Daniels and Brackenbury to alleged miraculous displays of divine power connected with the Prophet’s death; . . .
Fortunately for the church; fortunately for the truth of history, the church placed on record at an early date following the event an official declaration of the accepted facts and incidents attending upon the martyrdom of her two chiefest men and prophets: and it is with a deep satisfaction that one can note the absence of the myths and legends that ignorance and superstition would all too willingly attach to the tragedy of their martyrdom. (Comprehensive History of the Church, by B. H. Roberts vol. 2, pages 332-334)
It is interesting to note that B. H. Roberts called this story a myth in his Comprehensive History, and yet it appeared in the History of the Church as it was first published. It was removed in the 1902 edition. The reason the B. H. Roberts did not mention that this story was once in the history and later removed is obvious; if he had mentioned this fact, it would have cast a shadow of doubt upon the entire history, for if George A. Smith (who was the Church Historian at the time this story was put in the history) included “myth and legend” in the history at this point, how can we know that other parts of the history are accurate? Perhaps the history is filled with “myths and legends.”
In the Changes in Joseph Smith’s History, page 66 we show that part of Joseph Smith’s explanation of the word “Mormon” has been deleted. In the Millennial Star, vol. 21, page 144, Joseph Smith stated:
I may safely say that the word “Mormon” stands independent of the learning and wisdom of this generation. * * * *
Before I give a definition, however, to the word, let me say that the Bible, in its widest sense, means good; for the Saviour says, according to the Gospel of John, “I am the good shepherd;” and it will not be beyond the common use of terms to say that good is among the most important in use; and though known by various names in different languages, still its meaning is the same, and is ever in opposition to bad. We say from the Saxon, good; the Dane, god; the Goth, goda; the German, gut; the Dutch, goed; the Latin, bonus; the Greek, kalos; the Hebrew, tob; and the Egyptian, mon. Hence, with the addition of more, or the contraction mor, we have the word Mormon, which means, literally, more good.
In the History of the Church, vol. 5, page 400, this has been changed to read as follows:
I may safely say that the word “Mormon” stands independent of the wisdom and learning of this generation. * * * *
The word Mormon, means literally, more good.
Although an omission is indicated, the changing of the last sentence is very dishonest. If the Mormon Historians had not removed the word “which” from the last sentence it would not have stood alone.
One of our readers has sent us some very interesting information which relates to this change. He stated:
Smith claimed that the word “Mormon” was formed from the Egyptian word “mon” (which he said meant “good”) and the English word “more” contracted to “mor” (together meaning “more good”). How can this be when there is no Egyptian word “mon” which means good. Even if there were such an Egyptian word, how could it get combined with an English word here on the American continent sometime before 400 A.D.? The English language did not develop until the middle ages and was totally unknown in the ancient middle east.
In a letter dated April 1, 1965, the same man writes:
I might add a few words about Smith’s definition of the word “Mormon” . . . the part I had reference to has been omitted from the present Church History, so I understand. While in the graduate department at Johns Hopkins University I made it a point to ask Dr. William F. Albright if there were any Egyptian word “mon” meaning “good”, or anything resembling it with such a meaning. Dr. Albright is one of the world’s leading authorities on the ancient near east and understood and offered courses in Egyptian. He assured me there was no such word. I wrote Dr. Sperry about this problem and he assured me he had “no off-the-cuff answer” for this problem (see letter enclosed). At the time Smith gave his definition Champollion was just working out the system of Egyptian hierglyphics, so as far as Smith knew no one could contradict him. However, it should have been obvious, even without a knowledge of Egyptian, that an Egyptian word could not be combined with an English word and appear here in America (since it’s used in the Bk of Mormon) before 400 A.D., when there was no English language until centuries later.
Originally appeared in: