How families manage conflict or disagreement reveals much about the attributes of a family. Whether family members can come to a sense of resolution is indicative of the level of family functioning. This section is designed to evaluate methods of problem resolution the Smith family engaged in and show whether or not those methods led to effective management or elimination of problems that arose.
Parental Strife
One area of discord for the Smith parents centered on their differences in religious orientation. Although both Joseph Sr. and Lucy were highly religious individuals, that religiosity varied in type. Early in their marriage, the couple’s belief systems coincided quite well. Lucy was greatly concerned about her own salvation. For many years she searched to find a religious institution that accorded with her faith. Lucy felt caught between joining organized religion and remaining aloof. As she put it, “If I remain a member of no church, all religious people will say I am of the world; and if I join some one of the different denominations, all the rest will say I’m in error. . . . How can I decide in such a case as this, seeing they are all unlike the Church of Christ, as it existed in former days!” Joseph expressed similar views. He “would not subscribe to any particular system of faith, but contended for the ancient order.”1
At this point in their lives, both Lucy and Joseph Sr. were seeking a religion that provided something more than what was found on earth. They were searching for a type [145] of restoration that more closely paralleled Christ’s New Testament church. The Smiths were not alone in their quest for the primitive religion. Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, and other Puritans believed that the true church did not exist on earth. Williams proposed that all should serve God the best way they knew how, until a visible church should be established. Just how this “restoration” was to take place was unclear; in the meantime, individuals should live as “members of Jesus Christ’s invisible church, according to their best understanding of scripture.”2 Many early converts to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints shared these restorationist beliefs prior to joining the Church.
Ultimately, Mother Smith found a minister who would baptize her without her having to attend the church the minister presided over. Joseph Sr. believed that salvation was universal and that none would be denied a heavenly inheritance. Hence, any formal organization was unnecessary, especially if it taught contrary to his belief. Joseph Sr. had a negative view of organized religion. With Lucy unable to find a church that harmonized with her ideology, and Joseph feeling that church attendance and outright forms were unnecessary, the couple got along equitably well.
However, once Lucy made a covenant to dedicate her life to the Lord during her severe illness in 1802–3, her attitude towards institutional religion changed. She now sought a formal organization in order to keep her covenant with the Lord (see chapter 5, subsection entitled “Death and Illness in the Smith Family—The Early Years”). Furthermore, she wanted her family to follow her in these endeavors.
During the early nineteenth century this was typical of mothers, who were celebrated as “the chief transmitters of religious and moral values.”3 [146] Magazines of the day encouraged mothers to inculcate their children with religious values.4 The Smith children remembered their mother making great “exertions to interest us in the importance of seeking for the salvation of our immortal souls. . . . She prevailed on us to attend . . . meetings, and the whole family became interested in the matter.”5 With Lucy striving to unite with a formal organization, she and her husband were now at odds, each possessing different religious ideologies. Adding to the rift, Lucy saw it as her role to convert the rest of the family. Marital conflict was inevitable; the two contrasting belief systems were destined to collide.
Mother Smith began attending different denominational meetings. While in Tunbridge, Vermont, Lucy attended the Methodist congregation. She strived earnestly to increase her husband’s desire for his salvation. Lucy indicated that she “endeavored to persuade . . . [her] husband to attend the methodist meeting[s].” She was to be disappointed in her attempt however, revealing, “he went a few times to gratify me,” but “my feelings were the only inducement for him to go.”6
Not only did Father Smith disagree with the doctrines of Methodism, but he had broken a family tradition by attending organizational religion. It was not long before Joseph Sr.’s oldest brother, Jesse, and his father expressed their opinions. The two came by on several occasions to persuade their son and brother of the futility of being involved with the Methodists. Lucy remembered that “they were so displeased” with Joseph Sr. and “said so much in regard to the matter, that my husband thought it best to desist” in attending.7 On another occasion, Joseph Sr.’s father came to the house [147] and “threw Tom Pain[e]s age of reason into the house and angrily bade him read untill he believed it.”8
The religious conflict between Joseph and Lucy had now spilled over into their extended family. Lucy felt ostracized from her husband’s family with regards to religion. This was escalated by the fact that the two men advised Joseph that “he ought not to let his wife go to the meetings [either].”9 Joseph ultimately concluded that it was “hardly worth our while to attend the meetings any longer, as it would prove of but little advantage to us; besides this, it gave our friends such disagreeable feelings.”10 Joseph was concerned about the feelings of his father and brother and ultimately sided with them. Lucy also affirmed that her husband followed their counsel and “accordingly . . . requested me not to go [as well].”11
Lucy likely felt isolated and invalidated in her feelings and religious convictions. She may have also felt betrayed, as her husband sided with his own family over her. She indicated that she felt “considerably hurt” by her husband’s decision and reported feeling “much depressed in spirit, which state of feeling continued until I retired to my bed.”12
Lucy’s response to her husband at the time of their conversation is revealing. After her husband requested she cease attending meetings, Lucy felt hurt. But instead of reacting immediately, Lucy held her tongue, choosing instead to “not reply to him then.”13 This response was not due to Lucy enacting a [148] traditional subservient role, as she would often stand up to men whom she disagreed with. Rather, she chose to avoid the possibility of escalating the conflict, deciding instead to pray to the Lord in behalf of her husband. Although hurt, Lucy was able to see beyond their differences to a larger concern—her husband’s salvation. She recorded, “I retired to a grove not far distant, where I prayed to the Lord in behalf of my husband—that the true Gospel might be presented to him, and that his heart might be softened so as to receive it, or, that he might become more religiously inclined. After praying some time in this manner, I returned to the house.”14
That night she dreamed about her husband. In her dream, she saw two trees, one very flexible and one very stiff and fixed. She interpreted the dream to mean that the trees
personated my husband and his oldest brother, Jesse Smith; that the stubborn and unyielding tree was like Jesse; that the other, more pliant and flexible, was like Joseph, my husband; that the breath of heaven, which passed over them, was the pure and undefiled Gospel of the Son of God, which Gospel Jesse would always resist, but which Joseph, when he was more advanced in life, would hear and receive with his whole heart.15
As a result of this dream, Lucy received the needed comfort and hope regarding her [149] husband’s salvation. The dream’s significance was powerful enough to allay feelings regarding their religious differences for a time.
Even though feelings were pacified, the religious differences remained largely unresolved. At different times in their marriage, the issue would resurface. Richard Bushman highlights this on-going struggle as turbulence.
Although Lucy and Joseph, Sr., both stood along the edges of church life, their attitudes differed somewhat. . . . Lucy always hoped she could find a minister to suit her; Joseph, Sr., thought the churches were corrupt. When Lucy made her covenant with God in 1803, she talked with ministers and church people in hopes that one would speak the right words to her. She attended church again in 1810 and 1811 when her father was converted. . . . Joseph, Sr., would have none of it. . . . He was deeply skeptical of the authenticity of clergy and doctrine.16
These differences reemerged and came to a head in Palmyra. Sometime in the early 1820s, Lucy renewed her efforts to join a church.17 A preacher tried to unify some of the different churches in the Palmyra vicinity, which was very appealing to Lucy. Lucy recalled that “this seemed about right to me, and I felt much inclined to join in with them.” It was not long before Lucy had convinced the majority of the rest of her family “to unite [150] with their numbers” as well.18 She once again attempted to cross the chasm with her husband and “persuade [him] . . . to join with them.”19 In characteristic pattern, Joseph Sr. attended several meetings with Lucy. His attitude towards organized religion remained unchanged, however. As Lucy indicated, “To gratify me, my husband attended some two or three meetings, but peremptorily refused going any more, either for my gratification, or any other person’s.”20 Joseph Sr. continued to seek for something that would coincide more perfectly with his beliefs.
In the meantime, though, Lucy indicated that her husband “did not object to myself and . . . the children going or becoming church members if we wished.”21 This represented a change of attitude for Father Smith. The fact that he was not under the direct supervision of his father or brother may have contributed. Or it may have been that Father Smith had matured to the point where he made his own decisions regardless of how his father or brother might react.22 He allowed his wife and children to pursue their desires, whereas before he insisted that Lucy not attend. The children’s influence and desires may have also helped him to change his attitude. Whatever the reason, most of the older children joined the Western Presbyterian Church of Palmyra with their mother.23 Richard Bushman has indicated, “These differences on religion divided the children as [151] well as the parents in the family.” He further perceived that the Smith “children . . . were caught in the middle,” particularly Joseph Jr., who was undecided at the time. Joseph Jr. then became a critical change agent to the parents. Bushman continued, “Moreover, he [Joseph Jr.] could not tell how he could possibly make a decision with conflicting direction from his parents and no clear answer from the scriptures. That was the time he went to pray, carrying this heavy family and doctrinal burden. He wanted to know the truth about the churches in order to find salvation for himself and, on top of that, to resolve a deep family conflict.”24
As the events of the restoration began to unfold, particularly after Moroni’s initial visits, the parents became increasingly involved in their newfound mission. By the time their son was well into the process of translating the plates, Lucy and the other children had withdrawn from the Presbyterian church.25 As has been noted, Father Smith also faithfully lent his support to his son. Thus, for the first time since Lucy made her covenant in 1802–3, Joseph Sr. and Lucy were united in their religious views. This unification was likely the reason that Lucy recounted these family feelings: “We were convinced that God was about to bring to light something that we might stay our minds upon . . . or that [152] would give us a more perfect knowledge of the plan of salvation and the redemption of the human family . . . [more] than anything which had been taught us heretofore. . . . This caused us greatly to rejoice, the sweetest union and happiness pervaded our house, and tranquility reigned in our midst.”26 Their son Joseph Jr. had succeeded in bringing a resolution to their differences. Perhaps this explains Joseph Jr.’s exuberance over his father’s baptism at the time the Church was organized. Said one eyewitness,
There was one thing I will mention that evening that old Brother Smith [Joseph Sr.] . . . was babtised. Joseph [Jr.] was fild with the Spirrit to a grate Degree to see his Father [baptized] . . . he bast [burst?] out with greaf and Joy and seamed as tho the world Could not hold him. He went out into the Lot and appeard to want to git out of site of every Body and would sob and Crie and seamed to Be so full that he could not live . . . he was the most wrot upon that I ever saw any man.27
Mother Smith also recalled the younger Joseph’s reaction to his father’s baptism. Said she, “When Mr. Smith [Joseph Sr.] came up out of the water, Joseph stood upon the shore, and taking his father by the hand, he exclaimed with tears of joy, ‘Oh, my God! [153] have I lived to see my own father baptized into the true Church of Jesus Christ!’”28 The younger Joseph left his own recollection of that momentous day for the family, stating, “My own father and mother were baptized to my great joy and consolation.”29
At least part of Joseph Jr.’s joy was due to the fact that he had brought reconciliation to his family. It was through Joseph Jr.’s instrumentation that the yearnings and prayers of his mother for the salvation of Joseph Sr. were fulfilled. As Joseph Jr. put it, “I brought salvation to my father’s house, as an instrument in the hands of God when they were in a miserable situation.”30 Their son Joseph brought more than one type of salvation into the Smith home. Not only did he bring forth the restoration of Christ’s former church that both parents had long sought for, he brought an end to the theological differences that existed in the family. The younger Joseph brought reconciliation to his parents, who were at an impasse.
The couple’s struggle over religious differences highlighted how they handled conflicts. Lucy showed patience in avoiding situations that could potentially have caused additional conflict. She also compromised by submitting to her husband’s request and not attending church. Later, it was Joseph Sr. who compromised by allowing Lucy to attend the church of her choice and affording the children the same privilege. Both Joseph Sr. and Lucy also showed humility in not being so set in their own belief system that they were open to their son’s experiences with the supernatural. They sought for, and eventually found, a common ground that they were both comfortable with and at the same time managed to stay close and committed despite their years of religious [154] differences.
Some of the problem-solving skills manifest in the Smith parents’ relationship were also evident in the children’s marriages. Although these recordings are sparse within the historical records, there is an account that highlights how Joseph Jr. and Emma Smith handled conflict, which may be reflective of the family at large.
This particular instance occurred during the translation of the plates. David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, recalled the circumstance:
One morning when he [Joseph] was getting ready to continue the translation, something went wrong about the house and he was put out about it. Something that his wife, had done. Oliver and I went up stairs, and Joseph came up soon after to continue the translation, but he could not do anything. He could not translate a single syllable. He went down stairs, out into the orchard and made supplication to the Lord; was gone about an hour—came back to the house, asked Emma’s forgiveness and then came up stairs where we were and the translation went on all right.31
Although Whitmer’s statement was intended to address the process of translation, he gives us valuable insight into how Joseph and Emma handled conflict. Similar to his parents, Joseph Jr. used prayer as a medium to resolving conflict. We also see Joseph Jr. apologizing, even though it appeared that he disagreed with something that Emma had instigated. Lastly, from Whitmer’s implication, it looked as though this approach to [155] problem solving proved effective during this episode. Thus, Joseph Jr. succeeded in applying a problem-solving strategy that was similar to what he had seen in his own parents’ marriage.
The Use of Physical Force
It should first be noted that all of the Smith children were very tall and had very powerful physiques (see biographical summaries in the appendix). Most of the males in the family, at one time or another, used their physical prowess in order to solve problems. However, the male children appear to have used physical force only as a last resort. A neighbor remembered that the Smiths were “big stout men but never [were] quarrelsom[e]. would put up with any thing and every thing rather than have a quarrel.”32 Still, at times the children would engage in physical fights.
Alvin, the oldest son, became involved in a scuffle on one occasion. At first, Alvin was merely a spectator as two Irishmen engaged in a physical contest. However, as one of the men “was about to gouge the other’s eyes,” Alvin intervened. According to his brother, Alvin took the offender “by his collar and breeches, and threw him over the ring, which was composed of men standing around to witness the fight.”33 For Alvin there were limits in what was proper in a fight.
Although there is no evidence of Samuel engaging in physical fights, there is substantial evidence that other male members of the family participated in such exchanges. Hyrum, at least on one occasion, engaged in such an encounter. The conflict began when a neighbor, Willard Chase, confronted Hyrum and demanded that he give [156] Joseph’s seer stone back to him, because Joseph found the stone while digging a well on Chase’s property. Hyrum felt that Chase had no claims to the stone and reportedly told him “the stone was not [his] . . . nor never was.” Although the account is sketchy, it appears that Chase then denounced the Book of Mormon as a fraud. Hyrum took offense at Chase’s comment and reportedly “shook his fist;” the two then appear to have had a physical altercation.34 A short time later, Chase wrote to the editor of the local paper and referred to their dispute. Said Chase, “Please advise Hyrum Smith . . . not to be quite so impertinent, when decent folks denounce the imposition of the ‘GOLD-BIBLE.’ . . . Although not feared . . . Apostles should keep cool.”35
Joseph Jr. was also active in using physical force as a means of solving problems. From an early age, it appears he would occasionally use his superior physical strength to resolve differences with others. On one occasion, when he was only a boy, he came across a man who had beaten his wife. Joseph Jr. took offense at this and began to fight with the man. Although it was a “hard contest,” Joseph was encouraged by the fact that this man had beaten his wife and ultimately “whipped him till he said he had enough.”36
At another time, young Joseph and a boy about his same age, David Stafford, got into a fight. According to Joseph, the dispute arose because the Smith family dog bit [157] off the ear of one of Stafford’s hogs, which had wandered onto the Smith property. Stafford subsequently shot the Smith family dog.37 Joseph took exception to this behavior, and the two collided. Stafford recalled that “while at work . . . a dispute arose . . . and some hard words passed between us. . . . He got the advantage of me in the scuffle, and a gentleman by the name of Ford interfered, when Joseph turned to fighting him.”38 Joseph remembered “six other fellows pitched upon him unawares” and that he “whipped the whole of them and escaped unhurt.”39
As the male Smith children moved into adulthood, they continued to use physical force on occasion in seeking to resolve an injustice. On one such occasion a Baptist minister visited Joseph’s house in Kirtland and, according to Joseph, “abused my family.” Joseph indicated that he proceeded to turn the man “out of doors,” whereupon the minister “raised his cane to strike me.” Joseph, feeling justice was on his side, “whipped him” in a physical struggle until the man said he’d had enough.40 In another instance, a man came to collect a note on the prophet and similarly insulted him. Joseph Jr. “talked kindly to the man and begged him to wait a short time for the money as he could not pay him then but good words would not satisfy him. He abused him [Joseph] shamefully, calling him every name he could think of.” Joseph’s riding partner recalled that “Joseph did not appear much irritated in his feelings but after hearing him a while he turned his head to [me] and said, ‘That’s enough, hold the lines.’” After he handed the reins to his riding partner, Joseph “stept outside the carriage and knocked him down as flat as a beef, not speaking a word” and then continued on with his journey.41
Even though there are accounts that indicate Joseph Jr. was involved in [158] physical altercations on occasion, there were times when he showed considerable restraint. During the publication of the Book of Mormon, a man named Abner Cole, who had access to the press where the book was being published, illegally printed some of its pages in a local newspaper. When Joseph Jr. confronted Cole in his illegal activity, Cole “threw off his coat, rolled up his sleeves, and came towards Joseph, smacking his fists together with vengeance, and roaring out, ‘do you want to fight, sir? do you want to fight? I will publish just what I please. Now, if you want to fight, just come on.’”42
Although this was a prime opportunity to show his superior strength, Joseph Jr. declined the offer and instead reminded Cole of his infringement of the Book of Mormon copyright. Cole was still not to be deterred and again taunted, “If you think you are the best man, just pull off your coat and try it.” Joseph Jr. showed considerable restraint during this episode, replying at one point, “You had better keep your coat on—it is cold, and I am not going to fight you.” Joseph Jr.’s composure proved providential in this case, as Cole “began to cool off a little” and ceased his unlawful activity.43
By the 1840s, Joseph Jr. seemed to be even less inclined to use physical force to resolve differences. He counseled Saints in Nauvoo to “quell all disturbances in the street at the first onset.” In one instance, he rebuked bystanders who had witnessed a fight in the streets of Nauvoo but failed to intervene. Joseph Jr. recounted, “I saw two boys fighting in the street, near Mills’ Tavern. I [159] left the business of the Court, ran over immediately, caught one of the boys (who had begun the fight with clubs,) and then the other; and, after giving them proper instruction, I gave the bystanders a lecture for not interfering in such cases.” After returning to the court, Joseph poked fun at his own propensity to use his physical strength to resolve differences on occasion, when he remarked “that nobody was allowed to fight in Nauvoo but myself.”44
William frequently used physical force to solve problems. He used violence on several occasions to defend both his father and mother.45 Joseph Jr. and William also used physical force on occasion to solve their problems with each other (see section that follows on Joseph and William’s conflict). By his own admission, William “got into a great many quarrels and contentions with the young men of the neighborhood” during his younger years. He frequently boasted of his physical strength and the fact that he “invariably came off victorious” in such contests.46
Neighbors substantiate his claims. David Stafford recalled an occasion where William became upset because someone was writing down the particulars of a sacred ordinance. Said Stafford, “Seeing a young man writing down what was said on a piece of board,” William became “offended and attempted to take it from him.” When the man resisted, William “kicked at him” and then began grappling and engaged in “a scuffle.”47 Both William’s language and behavior were frequently hostile. In comparison with the rest of the family, he was most easily provoked to use physical [160] force to resolve differences.
Don Carlos also indicated a willingness to use physical force, if necessary, when his older brothers were incarcerated in Liberty Jail.48 Likewise, Father Smith appeared willing to confront those who crossed his family.49 However, how frequently these two family members used physical force remains unknown.
There is substantial evidence that certain members of the Smith family used physical force to solve problems. However, with the exception of William, it looks as though they were slow to use this method of problem solving. Yet at times, male family members used physical force as a means of managing conflict. It should be understood that this method of problem solving was quite common for the day. As Robert Flanders has concluded, “For people to take the law into their own hands was to be both democratic and faithful to the traditions of the American revolution. . . . It was a regular and ordinary part of the lifestyle.”50 Physical confrontation was a common dynamic among people who lived in the early nineteenth century. In examining the Smith children’s propensity to solve problems by force, it should be noted that physical fighting, as well as crudeness of speech, was common practice among all ranks of society.51
Joseph Jr. and William’s 1835 Conflict at Kirtland
One of the best accounts of how the whole Smith family handled conflict came in 1835. It directly involved Joseph Jr. and William, yet most of the family became involved in one way or another. The situation began at a high council meeting held in [161] Kirtland, Ohio, on October 29, 1835. William had brought charges against David and Mary Elliott of physical abuse of their daughter. At the council meeting, Joseph Jr., who had spoken with the daughter, defended the parents, as he felt that the “girl was at fault and that the neighbors were trying to create a difficulty.” Although Mr. Elliott was rebuked for bringing “disgrace upon himself, upon his daughter & upon this Church” for his abusive behavior, no official church action was taken.52
Later that same evening, William persisted in his accusations against Mrs. Elliott. Mother Smith was called in to give her testimony and, not having attended the earlier meeting, began to give evidence that had already been heard. Joseph Jr. objected to the testimony on account of it already being settled. He recalled what transpired next:
The complainant, Br. William Smith, arose and accused me of invalidating or doubting my Mother’s testimony, which I had not done, nor did I desire to do. I told him he was out of place and asked him to set down. He refused [so] I repeated my request. He become enraged. I finally ordered him to set down. He said he would not unless I knocked him down. I was agitated in my feeling on the account of his stubourness and was about to leave the house, but my Father requ[e]sted me not to do so. I complyed.53
Joseph Jr. initiated having the charges dropped and the Elliotts restored to fellowship.54 William was upset by the council’s action and particularly with Joseph Jr., who had directly countered his opinions [162] of the couple.
William was subsequently censured by the council for what they felt was inappropriate conduct at the high council meeting. William stood his ground. He wrote a letter the following day expressing his concern that “he . . . not be censured unjustly, concidering that his cause was a just one, and that he had been materially injured.” He also expressed his hope “to have the matter settled to the understanding of all.” Joseph Jr. replied to William’s letter and “invited him to call and talk with me, and that I would . . . [talk with] him in the spirit of meekness and give him all the satisfaction I could.”55
The following day, Hyrum visited Joseph Jr. because he felt something was amiss in the family. While they were visiting, William arrived at Joseph Jr.’s home as well. Hyrum, having to do some business, said he would return as soon as his errands were completed. William began to discuss the difficulties that occurred several nights previous, but Joseph Jr. requested him to wait until Hyrum returned. Part of this request may have been because Joseph Jr. knew very well his brother’s volatile temper and believed a mediator was needed to work out their differences. In a short while, Hyrum returned, along with Warren Parrish, and the two were requested to serve as intermediaries.56
Joseph Jr. proposed that they allow Hyrum and Warren to rule on the outcome of who had been at fault. William did not immediately agree. He voiced his grievance “that [Joseph Jr.] was always determined to carry [his] points whether right or wrong, and there fore he would not stand an equal chance with [him].” Although Joseph felt that this comment “was an insult,” he reported that he “did not reply to him in a harsh manner, knowing his inflamatory disposition, but tryed to reason [163] with him and show him the propriety of a complyance” with the request that the disagreement be settled by the other two men.57 William finally conceded to Joseph’s solicitation.
Joseph explained that he then proceeded to relate his side of the story:
And wherein I had been wrong, I confessed it, and asked his forgivness. After I got through he made his statements, jus[t]ifying himself throughout in transgressing the order of the council. . . . After he got through, Br Hyrum began to make some remarks in the Spirit of meekness, he [William] became enraged. I joined my brother [Hyrum] in trying to calm his stormy feelings, but to no purpose. He insisted that we intended to add abuse to injury, his passion increased. He arose abruptly, declared that he wanted no more to do with us or the Church and said we might take his licence for he would have nothing to do with us. He rushed out of the door. We tryed to prevail on him to stop, but all to no purpose. He went away in a passion.58
The difficulties between Joseph Jr. and William then spread throughout the entire family. Joseph reported that William went to their brother Samuel and succeeded in biasing his mind against Joseph. In time, other family members were influenced by William, including Sophronia’s husband, Calvin Stoddard.59 The [164] discord in the family was deeply troubling to Joseph Jr. and caused him much anguish. During this time he frequently prayed for his brother William. A witness to these events, Daniel Tyler recalled Joseph Jr.’s mood at the time. He reported,
At the time William Smith and others rebelled against the Prophet at Kirtland, I attended a meeting “on the flats” where Joseph presided . . . I perceived sadness in his countenance and tears trickling down his cheeks. A few moments later a hymn was sung and he opened the meeting by prayer. Instead of facing the audience, however, he turned his back and bowed upon his knees, facing the wall. This, I suppose, was done to hide his sorrow and tears. I had heard men and women pray—especially the former—from the most learned and eloquent. But never until then had I heard a man address his Maker as though He was present listening as a kind father would listen to a dutiful child. Joseph was at that time unlearned, but that prayer, which was to a considerable extent in behalf of those who had accused him of having gone astray and fallen into sin, was that the Lord would forgive them and open their eyes that they might see aright. . . . It was the crowning of all the prayers I ever heard. When Joseph arose and addressed the congregation, he spoke of his many troubles, and said he often wondered why it was that he should have so much trouble in the house of his friends, and he wept as though [165] his heart would break.60
On another occasion, Joseph Jr. prayed on behalf of William and “obtained a testimony that my brother William would return to the Church, and repair the wrong which he had done.”61 Joseph Jr. and William were deeply grieved over the conflict. Joseph Jr. felt it was a scheme orchestrated by the adversary to overthrow his family. A few days after their meeting, the Prophet Joseph received a revelation directed to the Twelve, indicating that “my servant William shall return and I will make him a polished shaft in my quiver.”62 Joseph Jr. still put faith in, and stood faithfully by, his brother in his calling as an Apostle, even though Joseph felt strongly that he had been wronged by William.
Negative feelings between the two continued to linger into the winter months. By December, the brothers were interacting, but the underlying issues remained unresolved. Joseph Jr. attended several meetings of debate held at his parents’ home, where William lived. William was actively involved in these debating meetings and may have been the one who organized such activities. The first debate proceeded without incident. However, at the second debate, held on December 16, 1835, the conflict came to a head. The group that was gathered discussed whether they should terminate the debating school, as some were afraid it might cause some negative feelings between members of the Church. William and Joseph Jr. disagreed about whether the debate school should continue—William being in favor and Joseph opposed. William disputed measures that would have discontinued the debating school and wanted the matter discussed further. [166] When his motion did not carry, the conflict between the two brothers resurfaced.63
It is likely that Joseph may have also contributed to the negative escalation of their feelings, as he later conceded that he was “hasty” and “harsh” at the debate.64 Also, Almon Babbitt testified that there “would not have been any difficulty if J. Smith [Joseph Jr.] had not have got mad.” Further, Babbitt felt that Joseph Jr. “would not have wanted the school broke up, if they had not got defeated” in the debate. Although Babbitt later confessed that he made these accusations out of anger, they may well reflect William’s side of the difficulties. Joseph Jr. may have also escalated the conflict when at the time William became enraged, Joseph Jr. told William that he looked as “ugly as a devil.” Benjamin Johnson reflected a more balanced view when he reported that “J. Smith was riled and Wm. Smith was mad.”65
Father Smith was also present at the conflict. As his sons became upset and feelings escalated, he attempted to intervene by commanding silence. Joseph Jr. initially obeyed the command, but William retorted that he “would say what he pleased in his own house.” Father Smith continued to mediate, attempting to allay feelings so that there could be an atmosphere in which to settle their differences. Joseph Sr. allowed William to speak his mind, but cautioned, “let the rest hold their tongues.” At this point, Joseph did not obey the charge either and responded by stating that he “built the house” and that it was “as much mine as it is yours.” This was too much for William, and he resorted to physical force. Joseph Jr. recalled in a letter to William what transpired next. Said he, [167] “I saw that your indignation was kindled against me, and you made towards me. I was not then to be moved, and I thought to pull off my loose coat, lest it should tangle me, and you be left to hurt me, but not with the intention of hurting you. But you were too quick for me.”66
Once again, William felt undermined by his brother, and Joseph Jr. became his central target. Before Joseph Jr. could remove his overcoat, William violently attacked him and beat him so savagely that for a time he could neither sit nor stand without assistance. Apparently William reinjured Joseph Jr.’s side, which was wounded when he was tarred and feathered in 1832. The next day Joseph reported that he was “at home—quite unwell.”67
Perhaps the feelings the two brothers experienced towards each other were larger than the incidents that took place at the high council meeting or at the debate. There is some evidence that William may have resented his older brother and the attention given him by his parents. In later years, William reflected on the fact that during his teenage years he “was quite wild and inconsiderate, paying no attention to religion of any kind.” He further said that as a result of this behavior he “received frequent lectures [168] from . . . my brother Joseph.” In fact, it wasn’t until after the Church’s organization that William took an interest in his soul’s salvation, and this was only after he “was exhorted continually by my parents and brethren; especially by Joseph.”68 For a young man who found the family’s religious habits “eark some or tiresome,” he must have considered his brother’s lectures as equally irritating.69 William was bothered by the fact that his brother frequently got his way because of his position as president of the Church. However, Joseph Jr.’s position in the family was also difficult for William. Joseph Jr. felt strongly that it was his prerogative to reprove his younger brother, because of both his ecclesiastical and birth-order positions. In fact, Joseph Jr. felt that it was his “duty” to admonish William when he did wrong.70 This was difficult for William, as it might be for many younger siblings, and he often rebelled when Joseph Jr. reproved him.
It was also hard for William to stay in the background as his older brother was continually the focus of attention, both publicly (in civic and church responsibilities) and privately (within the family). Joseph Jr. was the chosen son, substantiated by prophecy and revelation, who the whole family unequivocally accepted.71 During the difficulties in 1835, family members once again felt that Joseph Jr. was in the right. Hyrum defended Joseph at their meeting after the high council episode. William reacted with disdain, turning immediately to Samuel for an alliance in his perspective. Father and Mother Smith, along with Hyrum, defended Joseph Jr. after the debate school [169] incident.72 Time and time again, the cost of holding on to his anger became too great, as it left William feeling ostracized not only from the Church, but also from family members. Because of his strong ties to the family, William could not remain distant for long, and after the altercation he sought reconciliation with his brother.73
Within days of their clash at the debate school, William wrote letters to Hyrum and Joseph Jr. asking for forgiveness and confessing his faults. It is interesting to note that his first sentiments have to do with family relationships. Said William, “I do not know but I have forfeited all right and title to the word brother, in consequence of what I have done, (for I consider, myself, that I am unworthy to be called one).” He then penitently sought Joseph Jr.’s forgiveness. He continued,
After coming to myself, and considering what I have done, I feel as though it was a duty to make humble confession to you for what I have done. . . . Do not think I am your enemy for what I have done. . . . When I reflect upon the injury I have done you, I must confess that I do not know what I [170] have been about. I feel sorry for what I have done, and humbly ask your forgiveness. I have not confidence as yet to come and see you, for I feel ashamed of what I have done; and as I feel now, I feel as though all the confessions that I could make, verbally or by writing, would not be sufficient to atone for the transgression. Be this as it may, I am willing to make all the restitution you shall require. . . . Brother Joseph, you are always willing to forgive; but I sometimes think, when I reflect upon the many injuries I have done you, I feel as though confession was hardly sufficient. But have mercy on me this once, and I will try and do so no more.74
After reading the letter from his brother, Joseph wrote back that same day. These letters are insightful in indicating how the two brothers worked through their difficulties. They were able to express clearly their feelings for each other, as well as their concerns about the discord they experienced. Both brothers worked toward solutions in their letters. William sought to withdraw from the Twelve as a way of preventing further difficulties with Joseph and easing feelings among the Brethren. Joseph sought to counsel his younger brother on where he went awry and how he could prevent such actions from happening in the future. Their deepest concerns centered on how their behavior might negatively affect family relationships. Referring to their [171] conflict, Joseph Jr. stated, “[It] cannot be a source of sweet reflection to you nor to me, neither to an honorable father and mother, brothers and sisters.” Joseph Jr.’s letter then took on language characteristic of a prayer. He closed by stating, “And now may God have mercy upon my father’s house; may God take away enmity from between me and thee; and may all blessings be restored, and the past be forgotten forever. May humble repentance bring us both to thee, O God . . . to enjoy the society of father, mother, Alvin, Hyrum, Sophronia, Samuel, Catherine, Carlos, Lucy . . . is the prayer of your brother.”75
By January 1836, Joseph Jr.’s greatest concern, as well as that of the family, was “the division in the family” that resulted from Joseph Jr. and William’s clash. Further, Joseph Jr. “was determined that nothing on [his] part shall be lacking to adjust and amicably dispose of and settle all family difficulties.”76 William was also willing to reconcile, as evidenced in his letter sent to Joseph in December. The time was right for them to meet together to settle their differences once and for all.
The meeting of the two brothers took place on January 1, 1836. Father Smith acted as mediator in helping them resolve their differences. In addition, Hyrum, Mother Smith, Emma, and Uncle John Smith assisted in the resolution of their problems. Father Smith, as was characteristic, organized the particulars of the meeting. The men of the household went to a separate room for privacy, and then Joseph Sr. offered a prayer. [172] After the prayer, he spoke to his sons about the broken family relationships. One present at the meeting recalled that Joseph Sr. “expressed his feelings on the occasion in a verry feeling . . . manner, even with all the sympathy of a father whose feeling[s] were wounded deeply on the account of the difficulty that was existing in the family.” His influential sentiments “melted” the brothers’ hearts. Joseph Jr. and William then confessed their offenses to one another. Joseph Jr. recalled what transpired:
Br. William made an humble confession and asked my forgiveness for the abuse he had offered me and wherein I had been out of the way I asked his forgiveness, and the spirit of confession and forgiveness, was mutual among us all, and we covenanted with each other in the sight of God and the holy angels and the brethren, to strive from hence forward to build each other up in righteousness, in all things and not listen to evil reports concerning each other, but like brethren, indeed go to each other, with our grievances in the spirit of meekness, and be reconciled and thereby promote our own happiness and the happiness of the family.
At the close of their family meeting, Mother Smith was called in, and the brothers repeated their covenants to her as “tears flowed from [their] ey[e]s.”77
The resolution appears to have been effective. During the days following [173] the meeting, William resolved his differences with the Twelve and began to magnify his ecclesiastical assignments. Joseph Jr. was overjoyed to have his brother back in fellowship once again and reflected that “this day has been a day of rejoicing to me, the cloud that has been hanging over us has burst.”78
Summary
The way the family responded over the course of the brothers’ difficulties reveals much about how the family handled conflict. The brothers either used prayer themselves or allowed prayer to be used as a part of managing the conflict. Joseph prayed for his brother on several occasions and felt hopeful that things would work out. An attitude of hopefulness that things would improve, as reflected in Joseph Jr.’s writings, has been identified in modern-day social science literature as a characteristic of healthy change.79 This attitude of hopefulness that things would be resolved certainly played a part in facilitating reconciliation. In addition, the brothers were able to express their feelings through the medium of letters and, eventually, face to face. Father Smith, Hyrum, and Joseph Jr. showed great sensitivity during the problem-solving stage, so as not to provoke greater discord. Joseph Sr. and Hyrum demonstrated effective skills in moderating the brothers’ conflict. The closeness of the family is evident once again, as most of the family was involved in the conflict and in its resolution.
As time passed, the two brothers were not without their differences. Joseph struggled with William’s brashness in Nauvoo as he edited a local paper. Yet their relationship never got to the point of violence again, a testimony to the success with which they worked through their difficulties. [174]
