INTRODUCTION

In general, it matters very little whether or not a person writes his own diaries, letters, and speeches or delegates others to write for him, because, as H. C. Hockett has pointed out, if the one whose name appears on a work is the responsible source of the ideas set forth, he is the real author even if the writing is that of another.6 There are instances, however, when the question of authorship is of more than passing importance as in historical studies in which an individual's personality is observable primarily through his own writings. Ernest R. May has noted that no one can pretend to read a person's innermost thoughts or feelings in what someone else wrote for him,7 and Edward H. Carr adds that biography cannot be written unless the biographer can achieve some kind of special contact with the mind of the person about whose life he is writing.8 Medievalists have found that in spite of the existence of countless documents bearing the name of Philip the Fair (1268-1314), his contemporaries have written practically nothing that describes his personality, nor have students of that period been able to identify with certainty a single word that could be said to have been written or dictated by him. And although some of the royal papers reveal a unique style, there is no way to know whether the French king may have written or dictated any of them. "We therefore resign ourselves," concludes Charles-Victor Langlois, "we will never know who Philip the Fair was."9

The problem of understanding who Joseph Smith was, what his personality was like, is not so hopeless, but is nevertheless real. For while the Mormon prophet produced a sizable collection of papers, the question remains as to how clearly they reflect his own thoughts and personality. The answer lies in the documents themselves and becomes particularly clear when we note that the sources are not the past but only the raw materials whence we form our conception of the past, and in using them we inherit the limitations that produced them the lack of personal writing, the wide use of clerks taking dictation or even being assigned to write for him, and the editorial reworking of reports of what he did and said. For example, Howard Coray, employed with E. D. Woolley in 1840 to work on the Prophet's history, relates that Joseph furnished all the material and that "our business was not only to combine and arrange in chronological order, but to spread out or amplify not a little, in as good historical style as may be."10

When Joseph Smith began his record-keeping career in the early 1830s, he tenaciously sought to preserve records of personal and public value and to hand down to posterity an accurate picture of his life and the work in which he was engaged. The history he produced is of monumental importance. But limitations inherent in record keeping and history writing have had a screening effect upon our understanding of the Prophet. The very sources that inform also tend to obscure.

One reason for this devolves from Joseph Smith's dependence upon others to write for him. Considering his background and the trying conditions in which he lived, it is doubtful that he would have kept records at all had he not been directed by the Lord to do so. He wrote that because indigent circumstances required the exertions of his father's entire family to sustain themselves, he had been deprived of the benefit of an education, being instructed merely in "reading writing and the ground rules of Arithmatic," which constituted his "whole literary acquirements."11

Although Joseph's writing compares favorably with his contemporaries', he seldom used the pen himself, dictating or delegating most of his writing to clerks. A complicated life and feelings of literary inadequacy explain this dependence. He lamented his "lack of fluency in address,"12 his "writing imperfections,"13 and his "inability''14 to convey his ideas in writing. Communication seemed to him to present an insurmountable barrier. He wrote of the almost "total darkness of paper pen and ink, and the "crooked broken scattered and imperfect language."15 Toward the end of his life, he rejoiced that for three years he had been able to keep several clerks in constant employ to accompany him "everywhere" and record what he said and did.16 But however efficient they may have been, they were unable to fully preserve one essential ingredient in their work that would have been in Joseph's own writings his own personality. One notes, for example, a marked shift in style between two entries in his "Diary," the first written by the Prophet himself and the other written by his clerk Willard Richards:

September 23 [1835] This day Joseph Smith, Jr. was at home writing blessings for most beloved brotheren. I have been hindered by a multitude of visitors but the has blessed our souls this day. May God grant to continue his mercies unto my house, this night for Christ sake. This day my Soul has desired the salvation of Brother Ezra Thayr. Also Brother Noah Packard came to my house and let the Chappel Committee have one thousand dollers, by loan, for the building the house of the Lord. Oh may God bless him with an hundred fold, even the things of the earth, for this ritious act. My head is fuIl of desire to day, to be blessed of the God of Abraham with prosperity, until I will be able to pay all my debts; for it is the delight of my soul to be honest. O Lord that thou knowest right well! Help me and I will give to the poor.

April 17 [1843] Monday. Green grass begins to be seen. Walked out in the city with Clayton. Called on brother Taylor. Handed him the letter purporting to be from the Attorney Gen. of the U. States and gave him instruction about it. Looked at several lots. Called at Samuel Bennets to make arrangements to leave the house above the old burying ground. Returned home. Had conversation with Erastus Snow. Received 50 gold sovereigns of P. P. Pratt for the temple.

Although both entries accurately report Joseph Smith's activities for the days indicated, the reader comes away with very different perceptions of his personality. But because editorial procedures in his day did not require the precise definition of authorship, the distinction was lost when his diaries were incorporated into his History.

Another point where Joseph Smith's personality is obscured in writings attributed to him derives from the editorial practice, common even in our own time, of inserting eyewitness writings that have been changed from indirect to direct discourse. This practice gives the impression that Joseph wrote them.17

This is illustrated in the account of Zion's Camp as recorded in the History of the Church. In the absence of a Joseph Smith journal for that period, the compilers used the journal of another participant, Heber C. Kimball, changing his third-person narrative to maintain the first-person format of the History. On 21 June 1834, Heber C. Kimball reported the visit of men from Ray County, Missouri, to the Camp to determine its purpose. He noted that as the visitors listened to the Prophet speak, they "melted into compassion . . . arose and offered him their hands, and said they would use their influence to allay the excitement which everywhere prevailed." As reported by Brother Kimball, Joseph Smith comes across as natural and unassuming, but when the dialogue is shifted to first-person narrative to give the impression that Joseph himself is writing ("when I had closed a lengthy speech, the spirit of which melted them into compassion . . . "), there emerges a sense of pride, an almost egotistic image, that may not accurately represent Joseph Smith at all.

The sources indicate that the greatest distortion occurs at points where other personalities have intruded themselves between Joseph and the reader. Even in the preservation of his speeches, one finds a somewhat clouded view because shorthand skills were not sufficiently developed or mastered among Joseph Smith's clerks to allow verbatim reports of what he said, and the procedures for publishing them were also not exact.

While most of the Prophet's discourses have been preserved essentially as reported, one finds an occasional instance where the hand of the editor has been particularly heavy. For example, Willard Richards reported a segment of the Prophet's 21 May 1843 address merely with the words "rough stone rolling down hill." But those who later prepared the discourse for publication fleshed out the notation to read:

I am like a huge, rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in contact with something else, striking with accelerated force against religious bigotry, priestcraft, lawyer-craft, lying editors, suborned judges and jurors, and the authority of perjured executives, backed by mobs, blasphemers, licentious and corrupt men and women all hell knocking off a corner here and a corner there. Thus I will become a smooth and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty, who will give me dominion over all and every one of them, when their refuge of lies shall fail, and their hiding place shall be destroyed, while these smooth-polished stones with which I come in contact become marred.

While there is no doubt that the general content of this statement is accurate, the style and hence the impressions of Joseph Smith given here probably reflect the personality of the editor more than they do Joseph's.

If the image of the Prophet that emerges from his writings appears inconsistent or contradictory, the problem may be one of understanding the sources. Like an ancient mummy, all wrapped up for preservation, the detailed outlines of Joseph Smith lie hidden or deformed behind the efforts of numerous clerks and editors. To use his letters, diaries, and speeches to understand his personality is confusing unless we can separate his own writings from what others wrote for him. While the writings of those who helped Joseph keep his history are usually accurate in their presentation of subject matter and events, the deeper manifestations of thought and personality may at best be secondhand.

None of Joseph Smith's clerks realized that their methods of preserving what he said and did would, to a certain extent, blur the very individuality they sought to portray. And yet, whatever their literary or editorial shortcomings, the value of their contribution in preserving the records of Joseph's life and times is monumental.

The real importance of Joseph Smith's holograph writings (the writings he produced with his own hand) lies in their being his expression of his own thoughts and attitudes, his own contemplations and reflections. They not only reveal idiosyncrasies of his education and literary orientation, but also clearly reflect his inner makeup and state of mind his moods and feelings. Furthermore, they provide a framework for judging his religious claims.

In 1839 Joseph wrote from the jail at Liberty, Missouri, that "the things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out."18 He spent his life defending his claim to a special dispensation of religious knowledge, noting that "the envy and wrath of man has been my common lot all the days of my life and . . . deep water is what I am wont to swim in."19 Such was his experience that a little more than a year before his death he told an audience in Nauvoo, "If I had not actually got into this work and been called of God, I would back out. But I cannot back out: I have no doubt of the truth."20

The underlying issue facing the student of Joseph Smith is the credibility of Joseph's religious experience. Beginning in his own lifetime, his enemies charged him with deception and fraud, and critics of a later time have argued that the image of Joseph in the pages of his History was fashioned by an editorial reworking of the historical sources. Recognizing that final answers to the question of Joseph Smith's religious claims do not lie within the framework of the historical record, I contend that it is within that framework that we can evaluate the content of the sources and their use or misuse. If the process of preserving a record of the life of the founder and leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints erects a barrier to understanding his motives and personality, the unraveling of that process can serve as a means of identifying him and as a yardstick for comparing the public Joseph with the private one to see how he looks with the editorial props removed. Here then, in these pages, is Joseph Smith presented as clearly as his own writings will allow.