But, I occasionally write letters to the editor pointing out how wrong it is to have letters and columns based on faith in a publication that requires at least a modicum of proof for claims made. The editor is not a fan of mine, although that doesn't bother me a bit. He's asking to have some wording changed in a letter I submitted today, and I'm looking through my materials to find what I need to provide evidence for MY claim. I stated that Joseph Smith was drunk sometimes - he wants the wording to be changed to "said to be drunk". I may go along with that, but I'm wondering if someone can quickly direct me to sources that help me back up my claim.

I don't know if he was ever *drunk*, but he was known to, um, loosely interpret the WoW. An entry in his diary where he drank beer:

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2178111,2178125#msg-2178125

JS & the gang drank wine in Carthage Jail before the Greys showed up:

"Sometime after dinner we sent for some wine. It has been reported by some that this was taken as a sacrament. It was no such thing; our spirits were generally dull and heavy, and it was sent for to revive us. I think it was Captain Jones who went after it, but they would not suffer him to return. I believe we all drank of the wine, and gave some to one or two of the prison guards. We all of us felt unusually dull and languid, with a remarkable depression of spirits…" (History of the Church 7:101)

Thanks. I found similar articles and a number of others that state he WAS drunk sometimes. The editor called me to try to get the wording changed, and emailed too. I called him back and we had an interesting discussion. He's angry with me and used an analogy I easily pointed out the problem with repeatedly. He tried over and over to get me to loosen my stance, because the letter won't be popular, but when I was so very nice, but also quite firm, he abruptly shut down the conversation, almost to the point of being rude. Typical.

In all the study I've made of Mormon history, I don't recall ever seeing evidence that Joseph Smith actually got drunk (although substantial evidence that he did drink alcohol at least on occasion). Would you mind posting link(s) to the evidence you have found? Thanks.

lurking in Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In all the study I've made of Mormon history, I
> don't recall ever seeing evidence that Joseph
> Smith actually got drunk (although substantial
> evidence that he did drink alcohol at least on
> occasion).

Yes. Very substantial.

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech18.htm

https://lifeafter.org/joseph-smiths-problem-word-wisdom/

https://www.amazon.com/Hearts-Made-Glad-charges-Intemperance/dp/B0006CJK4E (a book I have to buy now)

https://www.mormonismi.net/jamesdavid/postin13.htm

Still going through my materials to find more sources.

Thanks. After reading your sources and another one I found, I do now vaguely recall coming across some of these eyewitness statements in the past.

The problem I see is that you want to make a factual claim that will require you to lay out a certain amount of evidence to be weighed by the reader and have any chance of being considered credible.

Will you be able to do that in a "letter to the editor?"

No - the word count is severely limited. I told the editor I would be happy to provide them in the comments section below my letter (in their online forum), but he wasn't happy with that either. He's afraid people will come after him - he said as much, which makes him a bit of a coward in my book. I also pointed out how they print letters and columns from religious people that make astonishing claims and no one feels like they need to ask where the proof is, and how ridiculous it was to argue with me over part of one sentence about an individual long dead and a proven conman to boot. His analogy was flawed too. I'll take crap for the letter, but I always do. Strangely, I actually get less than you'd think - even the editor was surprised that a person living where I do would write a letter like the one I submitted. I told him people like me do exist and should be heard - we certainly are allowed to state our opinions and findings like everyone else. I'm already a pariah in my neighborhood, and my immediate family is split apart forever (meaning I rarely see half of our grandkids, a pain I never imagined would happen to me). So, I'm used to it, but it shouldn't happen. We'll see what the reaction is when the letter is printed.

Rather than employing the somewhat weak phrase "said to be drunk," that he wants you to use or the more absolute phrase "was drunk" that you prefer, could you find some middle ground and state something like "there are eyewitnesses accounts in the historical record which would indicate Joseph Smith was intoxicated on more than one occasion"? Maybe not, though. It sounds like the editor wants to avoid all controversy (although I think the wording he likes would still be problematic for Joseph Smith fans).

Anyway, good luck!


By the way, here's another source I found with eyewitness accounts of Joseph Smith's drunkenness (search for the word "drunk" on the linked page):

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/joseph-smiths-new-york-reputation-reexamined-06/



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2019 07:58PM by lurking in.

I'm frankly surprised the editor would engage in this discussion with you. Usually, if you quarrel about details they just reject your letter altogether. So for whatever reason, they want your piece.

I like Lurking In's suggestion. I think you can go for an intermediate ground that is pretty strong. Why not a formulation like "was reportedly drunk" or "according to several accounts was drunk" or "was reportedly drunk several ties?" The word "reportedly" is accurate and more forceful than "was said to be" and doesn't change the word count much.

Congratulations on writing a letter that they are taking so seriously.

Thanks. It's not much of a letter, but I hope they use it. They've never rejected my letters before, and those raised a firestorm, in some ways. That's my aim, of course - I probably won't change anyone's mind, but I do hope to rattle some cages and cause a few people to think, for a change, you know?

Thanks - I didn't have that reference and am glad to add it to my library of material.

He's definitely trying to avoid controversy. I did attempt to find a middle ground, but he wasn't having it.

Cathy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The editor wants the wording to be changed to "said to be
> drunk". I may go along with that, but I'm
> wondering if someone can quickly direct me to
> sources that help me back up my claim.

Here's one of the best.

https://www.amazon.com/Hearts-Made-Glad-charges-Intemperance/dp/B0006CJK4E

The book will entertain you both with it's frequent poetry snippets and proof that Holy Joe was often as famously drunk as his dad.

He even swallowed one in on the day he was shot.

That's the book I referenced above, and I did buy it - should be here in a few days and I cannot WAIT to read it. It will also further bolster my claims. Thanks for the recommendation.

would be sufficient and the documentation for that is so abundant that it cannot really be argued against.

To say he "was drunk" really requires a threshold definition of "drunk", just as DWI laws have to specify blood-alcohol content levels in order to be enforceable.

In colloquial terms, "drunk" would usually be interpreted as being evidenced by slurred speech, staggering, passing out, vomiting and things like that. The historical record supplies ample evidence that he was at least mildly inebriated on multiple occasions, but it's not so clear whether he was drunk in the colloquial sense. (I suspect that he would have been. But few or none of his contemporaries would have had any particular cause to write anything about it for posterity to read.)

Mormons aren't even supposed to imbibe a drop of alcohol, so the fact that JS was drinking alcohol regularly and openly strongly suggest that he would have been regularly and openly in violation of the Word of Wisdom (as is now practiced and understood by Mormons). It also strongly implies that he would have been seen in various stages of inebriation, depending on how much he drank at any given time.

"strongly suggest that he would have been regularly and openly in violation of the Word of Wisdom"

which is enough to get mormons foamed up, as one of their most precious stories is how JS was so pure, he kept the WoW *long before it even existed* – when (per faith-promoting BS) he refused alcohol prior to his leg operation.

Agreed, but I was even stronger than that. To no surprise, I'm getting EXACTLY the responses I expected, and I'm answering each one politely, but not backing down at all. They don't like it.

I would adjust the language, but simply say "He drank alcoholic beverages, after and in violation of his own prophetic revelation that it was contrary to what became known as the Word of Wisdom."

Makes a better statement about his hypocrisy.

Interesting comments. It's too late to adjust the language now, but I'm going to mull over your thoughts and consider them for future conversations. I'm also very anxious to read the book I ordered. Should be interesting to see what it has to say and if it backs up the materials I already have.

Extremely irritated - he took liberties with the sentence in question. It says, ..."said to have been drunk and certainly didn't follow his own teachings...". Some of you suggested something like that, but I only agreed, reluctantly, to the first part of that. An editor of a newspaper putting his own words in someone else's letter in order to cover his butt. So, so wrong.

...And they say it isn't a CULT!

Yes, congratulations on writing the letter. Congratulations on discovering the Truth, and living a life of integrity.

I'm so sorry that your honesty and strong character has caused you to be shunned by your own family! This would happen only in a CULT. You are brave to keep moving forward and following your heartfelt convictions. These would be good qualities for you to pass down to your grandchildren, and we all hope that someday they will know and appreciate you. (((hugs)))

Well--even the editor knows that JS was "said to have been drunk". I am also familiar with these quotes, and have known them since seminary days, in California, decades ago. I thought it was common knowledge that JS drank! But, I suppose not here in Utah....

The editor wants to keep his job, and there ain't no "freedom of the press" for him. Nor for you. As you say, it's YOUR letter, not the editor's. If I were you (and I'll never have your courage and talent) I would go ahead and put your letter out there! Make the changes, if it will get your words published. It will be a whole lot better than saying nothing (like the rest of us do).

Way to to! You are a hero!

Thanks. It's "out there" and I'm taking big hits in the comment section. I respond to every comment with respect and kindness, but also firmness. I call out the parroting of the lifelong indoctrination and point out other things members REALLY need to know. Who knows if it will help, but I have to hope that some people are silently taking in the information and maybe, just maybe, not doubting their doubts, but starting to stare them in the face just a little bit.

the context (location) that U submit these letters is important and doesn't need to disclose your identity;

Is it IMW (Inter-mountain west), west coast, or further away from MoCentral?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/23/2019 03:46PM by GNPE.

They require it - letters can't be submitted without full name and where one lives.

I was referring to RfM readers & contributors to know where the OP was located. Yes, editors require even a loose verification.

Oh, sorry - I misunderstood you. I own what I am and what I say, though - I couldn't for a long time, but now I have to. The part of my family that is so problematic won't see the paper, so I won't pay any more for it than I already am, which helps. But, otherwise, I'm out and irritatingly outspoken sometimes. ;)