Hot tar? Are you sure.

Tarrimng and Feathering used the wheel tar from wagons back then. It was cold but stuck really well to skin.

Point 2: In an earlier article people sarcastically said that the two missionaries in Australia that were attacked should have beenm protected by God. I think they were because of the car that showed up to stop them from being killed.
The same thing with Joseph Smith. He wasn't killed either, but the two babies died from exposure on that night a short time later.

Read the bible some time... many prophets have been killed.
So perhaps there is more that is hapening here then many of you can see.

All of the historic research on this matter, shows that it would have been cold tar. Being tarred and feathered with hot tar would have been the exception, not the rule in Joseph's time.

We need to clarify that it was cold tar. This story about hot tar has been circulating around the Church for a long time and it is not accurate. It was COLD TAR.

Enjoyed the article. However, you should have discussed the real reason Joseph was tarred and feathered that night. We should not be ashamed of the early Church history. It is always best to let the facts speak for themselves.

The Johnson brothers were the older brothers of one of Joseph's wives.
Cold tar is likely what was used.
Did those mobsters really get baptized? I hadn't heard that before.

The "rest of the story" on the WHY he was tarred and feathered is the part we never hear....but it is like that with so much of church history as it is presented to us. If I told you the why this comment would likely be censored and not posted.

We do need to hear the both sides to each story.
We only hear one side when the entire truth is needed. Typically these things were a reaction to something else that occurred. We never seem to hear what that initial action was.
Violence is hardly ever justified but usually there was justification for some action.

You conspiracy theorists are so funny. The why was because of fear and hatred. Violence is violence. No one should have to go through violent attacks of this nature regardless of the so called whys. Just because you disagree with a person's beliefs, it doesn't give you the right or the moral high ground to enact violent vengeance. Wrong is wrong whether done under the guise of one religion or another; one political party or another; one philosophy or another. No one in their right mind claims everything done by the early or present day church members is right. However, they did not and do not deserve to be treated with violence for their beliefs.

O.K. all you big shots who know everything lets HEAR your VERSION of why he was tarred and feathered ! What absolutly horrible thing did he do to deserve this kind of treatment from such RESPECTABLE men? In the article it just said that some (I think the number was 3 were baptised - I don't think that it ment the mobsters - but I have heard that in other things that I have read)

It says..."many others in the mob. With my flesh all scarified and defaced, I preached to the congregation as usual, and in the afternoon of the same day baptized three individuals."

Staker says that the Prophet's account holds up well.
Sounds to me like the tar was hot. I believe in the account from his mother she mentions the burns from the tar. There is nothing that goes on today that compares to what the Prophet Joseph endured. Why the tarring??? Because he claimed to be the Prophet and was hounded until they ended his life at Carthage.
Read people....read! This knowledge brings us closer to knowing the mission of this man.

re: Related
The Johnsons had houseguests in the early 1830s and the Johnson brothers didn't like how close they were to their sister.

Jessica, Agree, and More info - The article states some reasons toward the end. If you have facts or sources stating other reasons, please post them along with your sources (perhaps Agree could think of a way to say it in a civil manner so it doesn't get censored, as he fears it will).

Related - The article doesn't say the mobsters got baptized. It just says Joseph "baptized three individuals."

Uhhh, we do read. That is why we KNOW the rest of these stories.

A lot of people here seem pretty confident about the temperature of the tar used. So how do you know so well, were you there? Did you talk to these people to find out specifically why they assaulted Joseph Smith. Or are you supposing that theoretical consensus translates to reality.

I'm guessing that nobody here was actually there, including professional historians, so it might be better to just accept the fact that we don't know everything and quit impugning people for not understanding unknowable facts the same way you don't understand unknowable facts.

Try your best to to just explain it all away.

I always heard that people had to do very bad things to get themselves tared and feathered. So what did Joseph Smith do that was so bad that he should have been tared and feathered?

If we all read, "Rough Stone Rolling" By Richard Bushman, we could all understand what Joseph Smith went through. The Book is the best account written of the American prophet, with hands down the most research.

Did this event have anything to do with the Kirtland Banking Society (or non-banking Society)? This area of Ohio was experiencing a financial crunch due to real estate specualtion and other financial problems at the time (sound familiar?). Had these people lost money in the bank (or non-bank as they later named it so that the Ohio regulators wouldn't get after them)?

Have you ever tried to do anything with cold tar? Sort of sits there like a hard lump.

There is no conspiracy theory bone in my body. I stand by my comment. We (LDS people) routinely are uniformed on our own history due to our inability to "be curious"...the information is out there!

The Tar and Feather incident came quite a few years before the Kirtland Bank Crisis, which occurred in 1837. The incident with the mob occurred in 1831 or 32, I can't remember off the top of my head.

Try this again--Was J. Smith taking the Johnson Bros sister as a polygamist wife? If so,then from the perspective of the non Mormons at that time, he's lucky he was only tarred and feathered. Seriously, taking a man's sister to bed in the 1830's was a pretty big deal.

The "tar" was more of a thick slurry, than tar as we know it today. Back in Joseph's time there were no ashpalt/tar roads. It was a different kind of tar (about the same consistency as roof tar today). It was also cold. They didn't heat tar back then (it wouldn't have been necessary because of the thin consistency).

Okay, for the third time, if it is true that J. Smith was taking the Johnson Bros sister as a polygamist wife, don't you think, given the time and place, J. Smith is lucky he was only tarred and feathered? I'm surprised they didn't shoot him and claim justifiable homocide.

The real reason Joseph was tarred and feathered is out there for anyone to read about. Just google or read your Church History.

Anyone who tries to post the real reason will not make it onto this board. I guarantee you.

...but one explanation by Amos S. Hayden in his book "Disciples in the Western Reserve" said it stemmed from some of John Johnson's sons resenting their father planning on giving land over to Joseph Smith. A separate interview with Rev. S. F. Whitney by Arthur B. Deming gives a similar reason involving both Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon.

A letter written by Symonds Ryder (whose name Joseph claimed to have heard during the mobbing) indicated he had the same worry about his own property, although Ryder's son claimed he was not part of the mob.

The theory about Joseph making advances on Marinda (Johnson) Hyde comes from Clark Braden in 1884 who claimed to hear it from her brother Eli. The problem with this theory is, while they had the same last name, Eli Johnson was not Marinda's brother.

There were also Ezra Booth's letters to the Ohio Star that may have inflamed passions, mixed with a liberal amount of alcohol.

Try this again-The real reason behind the tar and feathering. I doubt this will make it past the censors, but it is part of Church History and we should never be ashamed of our history.

"In an 1884 debate, Clark Braden, a member of the Church of Christ (Disciples), alleged that Marinda's brother Eli led the mob against Joseph because he had been intimate with Marinda."

Church History, vol.34, pg 237.

Several factors lend plausibility to this theory: Eli Johnson was in the mob; castration may have been considered appropriate punishment for sexual misconduct; according to Todd Compton, Joseph tended to marry women who stayed in his house or in whose house he stayed; and in fact, Joseph did marry Marinda, in 1842.

All respect to Joseph and the trails he has to endure, the evil one throws everything at him but was not allowed to kill him at this point, Joseph was able to overcome all, hence the right to stand among the elite of God.
Physical History is good to know but it will not save us...so lets put things into their spiritual perspective and follow the teachings of the prophets.

Bingo!

I didn't mean to sound contentious but it took three tries to get may post to show so I kept shortening it. My point is that the behavior of J. Smith when viewed from the perspective of a non believer would warrant some kind of action. I know if some guy who claimed to speak to God moved to my town and he and his followers were being "intimate" with local women, especially relatives, it would stir me to action. And if a televangelist was taking money from my parents, I'd step in.

Amen. Well spoken. People tend not to view Church history from the non-believer. It can be very enlightening and educational to view events from the non-believer side of Church history.

Thanks for clearing that up. It's good to know that the purpose of your post was to condone violence and mob action as a means for airing grievances. Enlightening indeed.

One thing doesn't make any sense, though, if this was about Joseph Smith's behavior, why did they beat up Sidney Rigdon too?

Fredd (and others who share his "blame the victim" mentality) - do you have a response to the post from "No one knows exactly why" @ 1:31?

I knew from past discussions on these comment boards that lots of people disagreed with--and even hated--the LDS Church, but I didn't realize until now that so many people would actually defend the mobsters who tarred and feathered another human being.

I don't agree with LDS on , well, most anything doctrinal. However, I find it so odd that if people posting could be a bit more respectful with their tone I could take them a lot more seriously. I love a good doctrinal debate. But when it comes to history of religous figures, faith often recounts events in the eye of the believer. Trust me on this. I consider myself a devout Catholic. But I venture out and read Elaine Pagels. I love exploring the possibility that Jesus travelled to India and learned Buddhism. Historical facts? Maybe. Maybe not. But does it chase me away from my Faith. Not at all. Just good reading and makes me more open minded. To the LDS faithful I would only say this: You will never be able to base your Faith on every jot and tittle of Joseph Smith's life. If this is your Faith, love it, explore it and don't worry about those who want to "fact" it into extinction. You have a wonderful, rich heritage. Be proud and humble in the same breath. ----A Catholic Friend

if Joseph Smith was doing anything immoral, the Lord would have allowed him to be killed. He wouldn't let his prophet deceive the people like that. We're told that when a servant of the Lord (a prophet or apostle) does something wrong, he is taken. The lord won't let a prophet or apostle deceive us. And does it really matter if the tar was cold or hot? It was humiliating and painful.

joyce,

Good luck. My prayers are with you.

What a wonderful post. How I wish everyone took your stance on all faiths.
Thank you for posting.

To my knowledge only one of the twins died as a result of the exposure that terrible night, Joseph Murdoch Smith, the baby that Joseph was sleeping with. Julia lived and was a source of support and love for Emma all her life. Why was Joseph tarred and feathered? Any number of reasons, real or imagined. It was a common practice for communities to assault anyone in the community who was considered a threat for some reason. This was before "civil rights." Even though it was common practice it wasn't a moral or Christian/Buddist/Jewish/Muslim, tenet. We don't think that we do this today, but when you look at the name calling, the continuing questioning of patriotism, the neighbor mobs outside the home of the little girl in Florida I'd say we havn't quite overcome our tendencies to bias and contention with those with whom we disagree.