Joseph Smith and the Restoration

Joseph Smith and the Restoration, by Ivan J. Barrett, was written as a text for undergraduate students taking LDS Church history classes at Brigham Young University. Any student who carefully reads this text will gain dramatic insights into the life of the Prophet Joseph Smith and into the Church and kingdom of God during his lifetime. Professor Barrett has literally filled his Chapters with colorful stories and historical tidbits which make his Church history come alive. This text is not a dry or boring history; it is one of the finest texts of its kind to be written in the Church. Its author is to be commended for the years of historical investigation incorporated into the pages of his work.

The quality of his historical research is commendable, having relatively few errors and most of those quite minor. That our genealogy on the paternal side of Joseph Smith goes back before Robert Smith now (p. 15); that Samuel Smith II married two different Priscilla Goulds (p. 16); that it is not definitely known that the Prophet Joseph composed or even gave the so-called Lectures on Faith (p. 151); that the Missouri militia and mob forces totaled in excess of 30,000 (p. 346); that Orson Pratt’s work, Remarkable Visions, was originally published in Scotland in 1840 and the first printing in America in 1841 (pp. 31, 36); and the Beardman should be Boardman (p. 306), etc., are all minor items relating to Barrett’s historical research.

Perhaps more serious matters relating to the quality of his research would be: (I) The handling of quotations, (II) the conspicuous lack of credit given to some of the finest sources and works available to date on many of the subjects treated, and (III) the basic philosophy to the study of LDS Church history—the writer’s point of view and objectives.

I. Relating to the handling of quotations, a few examples will suffice:

1. Pages 473, 474, and 481 all quote the title of the Prophet’s political work as “Views on the Powers and Policy of National Government.” The citation is to the DHC vol. 6, pp. 197–209. The source cited reads, “Views on the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States.”

2. In his notes and references for Chapter 30, note 72 (p. 539), he gives a quotation from The Diary of Hosea Stout, and as reproduced in Barrett’s work, this three-line quotation contains nine errors.

3. If one turns to the quotation from Joseph Smith reproduced on page 40, note 9, there is no indication given to the reader that 117 words were deleted from the quote. If a person reads the content of the 117 omitted words, he might gain a clue as to the basic objectives of the writer. (This viewpoint will be discussed at another point in this review.)

II. Some of the finest scholarship in the Church touching most of the areas handled by Professor Barrett were conspicuously overlooked—at least these works are not mentioned. Many of these works had pertinent material and information which could have assisted him. Such works as the following are representative (to name but a few):

1. Flanders, Robert Brace. Nauvoo Kingdom on the Mississippi. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1965.

2. Gentry, Leland H. “A History of the Latter-day Saints in Northern Missouri from 1836 to 1839.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Graduate Studies in Religious Instruction, BYU, 1965.

3. Godfrey, Kenneth W. “Causes of Mormon Non-Mormon Conflict in Hancock County, Illinois, 1839–1846.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Religion, BYU, 1967.

4. Hanson, Klaus J. Quest for Empire. The Political Kingdom of God and the Council of Fifty in Mormon History. Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1967.

5. Lyon, Thomas Edgar. “Orson Pratt Early Mormon Leader.” Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Dept. of Church History, University of Chicago, 1932.

6. Parkin, Max H. “Conflict at Kirtland.” Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Dept. of Graduate Studies in Religious Instruction, BYU, 1966.

7. Schindler, Harold. Orrin Potter Rockwell. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1966.

8. Thompson, Edward G. “The Political Involvements in the Career of Joseph Smith.” Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Dept. of Religion, BYU, 1966.

III. Probably no other text on Church history accomplishes so completely and effectively its basic stated objectives as does Joseph Smith and the Restoration. This fact alone makes the work exceptionally commendable. In the concluding paragraph of his introduction, Professor Barrett clearly and succinctly expounds the overall purpose and objective of his text:

To appreciate the Church, to love its teachings, to believe its divine origin, we must know its history. From the records of the past we can see our own course more clearly. It is men and women at their best who inspire us. Many a life has been transformed by the careful study and deliberate contemplation of great lives. In building for ourselves a strong and wholesome philosophy of living we need the inspiration of those who have lived gloriously. From out of the pages of Church history come such mighty ones. Let us walk, as it were, into the great portrait gallery of the noble Saints of the latter days—let us gaze into the faces of men and women who endured the contumely of the word to bequeath to us the truth; let us catch the fire and enthusiasm in their eyes; let us note the expression of hope and expectancy and mark the depth of courage and determination engraved upon their countenances. As we vicariously experience their faith, courage, loyalty, and persistence in righteousness we will be strengthened to lay aside every weight and run with majestic valor and sublime patience the race of life before us. (italics mine)

His purpose and objective seem self-explanatory. Professor Barrett has developed a basic philosophy about what historical information should or should not be presented in writing Church history for college youths at Brigham Young University.

From my analysis and appraisal of the text, together with the author’s above stated overall objective, several general guidelines seem to have been followed in the writing of his text. (1) No inspiration nor profitable learning can come to a student of Church history by seeing men and women at their worst. (2) We should only emphasize the “fire and enthusiasm,” the “hopes and expectancies,” the “courage and determination,” the “faith,” the “loyalty,” and “persistence in righteousness” of the “great lives,” those who “lived gloriously,” the “mighty ones,” or the “noble Saints of the latter days.” (3) Never become iconoclastic, but support and maintain the “tradition” at all times. (4) Do not delve into, analyze, or critically introduce any distasteful, suspicious, or questionable areas of Church history that in any way will hinder the accomplishment of guidelines 1 and 2 above. (5) Always be sure that our Church history be interpreted and presented in the light of our theology. There must always be agreement and consistency with each other. (6) Remember that the Saints are God’s people and are on the side of right. They are the victorious and they are they who will stand blameless at the last day.

Each of these guidelines consistently reveals itself through the pages of the text, and taken together, the guidelines seem to produce a very positive approach to Church history. In fact, a presentation of Church history using the opposite approach to any of these guidelines would be considered by many to be negative.

From my own personal experience in teaching LDS Church history to college students, I have asked myself the question as to whether, in the long-range look, the student should be exposed to both approaches—the stated guidelines and their opposites—but, of course, in an atmosphere of faith. Can there be learning and profit by also seeing men and women at their worst in Church history? Can knowing the despair, the humanness, the “real-down-to-earth-like-me-ness” do anything positive for my students? If they are constantly being exposed to the “problem areas” of Church history “across the way,” or by the apostates, etc., can the student and I profit by having an honest, “no holds barred,” “we search after the truth” attitude? I seriously wonder which of the two approaches is the more negative or positive in the long run. Time and experience may reveal this to us. Meanwhile, Joseph Smith and the Restoration will be appreciated and esteemed for many years to come.