Thomas B. Marsh’s Story: A More Accurate Version of Why He Left the Church
In Richard Dutcher’s comments last week about leaving the LDS Church, he mentioned the traditional legend we hear in the church — that Thomas B. Marsh left over a milk dispute between his wife and some else’s.
In my Elder’s Quorum lesson for today, I was asked to teach on Elder Bednar’s recent talk entitled, “And Nothing Shall Offend Them.” (Incidentally, some of you may find it interesting to note that Elder Bednar perpetuates the same myth in this talk as well.)
Anyway, this made me want to read more on Brother Marsh, so I went to his Wikipedia article, and got a pretty good explanation on the events leading to his disaffection. I thought you might enjoy reading it, so here is the part about his falling away:
In April of 1838, Church President Joseph Smith and his first counselor Sidney Rigdon moved to Far West, which became the new church headquarters. Although disfellowshipped, David and John Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, W.W. Phelps and other former leaders (who were known as the “dissenters”) continued to live in the County. By early June, some of the more zealous Mormons, led by Sampson Avard, formed a society which came to be known as the “Danites.” According to Marsh, these men swore oaths to “support the heads of the church in all things that they say or do, whether right or wrong” (Document, p. 57). According to Reed Peck, two of these Danites, Jared Carter and Dimick B. Huntington, proposed at a meeting that the society should kill the dissenters. Marsh and fellow moderate, John Corrill, spoke vigorously against the motion (Peck, pp. 22-23). On the following Sunday, however, Sidney Rigdon issued his “Salt Sermon” in which he likened the dissenters to salt that had lost its savor and was “good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men” (Van Wagoner, p. 218). Within a week the dissenters had fled the county.
Although he may have been concerned about these events, Marsh remained in the church until late October. According to his sworn testimony, Marsh claimed that a Mormon invasion of Daviess County and the subsequent looting and burning of non-Mormon settlements, including Gallatin, the county seat, were the acts that caused him to leave. Marsh stated:“A company of about eighty of the Mormons, commanded by a man fictitiously named Captain Fearnot [David W. Patten], marched to Gallatin. They returned and said they had run off from Gallatin twenty or thirty men and had taken Gallatin, had taken one prisoner and another had joined the company. I afterwards learned from the Mormons that they had burned Gallatin, and that it was done by the aforesaid company that marched there. The Mormons informed me that they had hauled away all the goods from the store in Gallatin, and deposited them at the Bishop’s storehouses at Adam-on-diahmon” (Document, p. 57).
On October 19, 1838, the day after Gallatin was burned, Thomas B. Marsh and fellow apostle Orson Hyde left the association of the Church. Marsh drafted and signed a legal affidavit against Joseph Smith on October 24, 1838, which Hyde also signed. In addition to reporting on the organization of the Danites and on the events in Daviess County, Marsh reported rumors that the Danites had set up a “destroying company” and that “if the people of Clay & Ray made any movement against them, this destroying company was to burn Liberty & Richmond.” He further stated his belief that Joseph Smith planned “to take the State, & he professes to his people to intend taking the U.S. & ultimately the whole world” (Document, p. 57). Marsh’s testimony added to the panic in northwestern Missouri and contributed to subsequent events in the Mormon War.
Because a Mormon attack was believed imminent, a unit of the state militia from Ray County was dispatched to patrol the border between Ray and Mormon Caldwell County to the north. On October 25, 1838, reports reached Mormons in Far West that this state militia unit was a “mob” and had kidnapped several Mormons. The Mormons formed an armed rescue party and attacked the militia in what became known as the Battle of Crooked River. Although only one Missourian was killed, initial reports held that half the unit had been wiped out. This attack on the state militia, coupled with the earlier expulsion of non-Mormons from Daviess County led Missouri’s governor Lilburn W. Boggs to respond with force. On 27 October he called out 2,500 state militia to put down what he perceived as a Mormon rebellion and signed what became known as the “Extermination Order” (Baugh, pp. 108–09).
Marsh was excommunicated from the Church in absentia on March 17, 1839 in Quincy, Illinois.
After Marsh moved to Utah and rejoined the Latter-day Saints, he looked back at his decision to leave the Church with regret. Concerning his actions in Missouri, he wrote:
“ About this time I got a beam in my eye and thought I could discover a mote in Joseph’s eye, though it was nothing but a beam in my eye; I was so completely darkened that I did not think on the Savior’s injunction: ‘Thou hypocrite, why beholdest thou the mote which is in thy brother’s eye, when a beam is in thine own eye; first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, then thou shalt see clearly to get the mote out of thy brother’s eye.’ ”Years later, in 1864, George A. Smith claimed in a sermon that Marsh had left the church because of a dispute between his wife and other Mormon women over a milk cow.[2] Although this tale has made its way into Mormon folklore, Smith’s statements are not supported by any contemporary evidence.[3]
I wonder whether discussion of the milk strippings story could really be considered slander. Slander is defamation by means of verbal communication. To be slander, a statement must be false and it must be communicated without privilege to do so. (Truth of the fact underlying the statement is, of course, an absolute defense to accusations of slander.)
Opinions can also be slander if they implicitly assume or expressly state a false underlying fact about a person. But if the expression of opinion is on a matter of public concern, it has traditionally been considered privileged as “fair comment” and therefore not slander. “The [fair comment] privilege extended to an expression of opinion on a matter of public concern so long as it was the actual opinion of the critic and was not made solely for the purpose of causing harm to the person about whom the comment was made, regardless of whether the opinion was reasonable or not. According to the majority rule, the privilege of fair comment applied only to an expression of opinion and not to a false statement of fact, whether it was expressly stated or implied from an expression of opinion.” (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 566 cmt. a (1977).)
In 1864, Elder George A. Smith commented on the milk strippings episode with Thomas Marsh’s wife. Elder Smith claimed at that time that Marsh stated that “he would sustain the character of his wife even if he had to go to hell for it.” If the milk strippings episode as described by Elder Smith really happened, then it is not slander to repeat it publically in 1984 or at any other time. Incorporating the episode into a publically stated opinion about the possible consequences of small things, or the causes and results of apostasy, or combining the episode with other facts about a person to present an opinion about ultimate causes and results relating to a matter of public concern likewise does not constitute slander. The persecution of the Latter-day Saints during the period in question, including the Haun’s Mill massacre, the Extermination Order, and the repeated forced expulsion and ultimate forced migration of the Latter-day Saints is a matter of public concern. Elder Hinckley’s 1984 discussion of the milk strippings episode and Thomas Marsh’s personal contribution to the persecution of the Latter-day Saints during the period are fair comment on a matter of public concern. (As a caveat, Thomas Marsh later stated his actions were motivated by jealousy of Joseph Smith.)
In any event, there can be no defamation of deceased people. (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 560 & cmt. a. (1977) (“The interest of the descendants or other relatives of a deceased person in his good name is not given legal protection by the common law.”).)
In his 1984 statement and at other times, Elder Hinckley and other Church leaders have mentioned their opinion that the milk strippings incident was an element of Thomas Marsh’s ultimate decision to leave the Church. After leaving the Church, Thomas Marsh did things that contributed at least to some small degree to the Extermination Order. In 1984, Elder Hinckley included the milk strippings episode as a “factor” in the ultimate Extermination Order. Although syllogistic, this could be shown to be a fallacy of composition provided that the premises are shown not to relate.
Several valid approaches exist to debating Elder Hinckley’s analysis of the place of the milk strippings episode either in Thomas Marsh’s decision to leave the Church or in the ultimate Extermination Order that resulted from the climate toward the Latter-day Saints that Thomas Marsh in part helped to foster after leaving the Church:
(1) One could argue that the milk strippings episode never happened and that George A. Smith was lying about it. This seems the only scenario in which Elder Hinckley could conceivably be accused of slandering Thomas Marsh by talking about milk strippings, affidavits, and persecution of the Latter-day Saints. However, since he is merely quoting George A. Smith and then building his analysis of later events on George A. Smith’s account of the milk strippings episode (i.e. Elder Hinckley himself didn’t make up the milk strippings episode), then any accusation that Elder Hinckley is slandering Thomas Marsh would depend on establishing negligence on Elder Hinckley’s part. That would be a separate analysis.
(2) One can argue that Elder Hinckley is wrong that the milk strippings episode played any role whatsoever in Thomas Marsh’s leaving the Church.
(3) One can argue that Elder Hinckley can reasonably follow George A. Smith’s statement and conclude that the milk strippings episode played some part in Thomas Marsh’s decision to leave the Church but that Elder Hinckley should also discuss other possible contributing motivations such as the alleged burning of Gallatin and dissatisfaction with the ad hoc formation of a group of Danites. (If this argument is made, then in addition to these things, Elder Hinckley should also quote Thomas Marsh’s own words that jealousy of Joseph Smith is what caused him to leave the Church.)
(4) One can argue that Elder Hinckley’s opinion is illogical or wrong that the milk strippings episode can be linked in any way, much less in a direct causal chain, to the Extermination Order and other persecutions.
Many other possible arguments also exist, but the first or derivatives/variations of it seem the only plausible route to accuse Elder Hinckley of slander.
None of this, by the way, approaches the underlying point, which at all times remains valid, that we should try to avoid taking offense where possible and in every case we should forgive those giving offense. These principles are very much in line with Jesus’ injunction to turn the other cheek and to forgive seventy times seven times.
My preference would be to drop the story of the milk strippings as support for discussions about leaving the Church, although I am not sure we should excise it altogether from our consciousness (assuming it actually happened). It might work better as support for not taking offense at small things without being tied in to discussions about leaving the Church.
As for Thomas Marsh’s broader tale, I feel that it remains a valid morality tale along the lines of the prodigal son and can stand apart from the milk strippings episode. This is along the lines of what Ronan is saying in comment # 1. We can applaud Thomas Marsh for repenting and coming back to the Church and be amazed at the humility that such an action required. That can teach us something about the attitude of humility, repentence, and forgiveness that we need to adopt to obey Christ’s teachings.
My dear friend, john f., thank you for educating us all on the law of slander. However, I think you are looking a little past the mark here. Slander in common usage can be defined simply as “a malicious statement or report.” What you refer to is the legal definition of slander and the elements one needs to prove in order to obtain relief in a civil action. As you know, words that have one meaning in common parlance often have a different meaning in a juridical context. Had the folks here who used the term been discussing the potential for legal action against those who perpetuate the milk-strippings legend, you might have a point. For clarification purposes, I assure you and the gentle readers of Mormon Stories that I had no such intention in my use of te word slander. When I used the word, I was thinking of the common definition “malicious statement or report.” So, I stand by the use of the word as I think it applicable to the situation. President Hinckley and the other leaders of the Church who continue to spread this (at best) half-truth about Thomas B. Marsh do te man’s name and reputation a severe disservice, scoring cheap points in a rhetorical game designed to augment their own authority and command absolute loyalty from their followers. By omitting key details about Marsh’s disaffection, they also show a disregard for truth. They do the same thing when relating details about the translation of the Book of Mormon, the murder of Parley P. Pratt, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the events leading to the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and on and on. The way LDS Church leaders relate the Marsh story is thus emblematic of the way they relate Church history generally–culling details and anecodtes that serve their particular agenda while ignoring or suppressing details that might put the church in a disfavorable light.
john f. said:
I disagree with this. I think there are some offenses given for which no forgiveness is required and for which forgiveness might actually be an immoral act. To the extent that Jesus said this, he was wrong. If I were the parents of Danielle Van Dam, for instance, I would not forgive Paul Westerfield for kidnapping, molesting, killing, and burying her in the desert. If there’s a God who wants to forgive her, that’s fine, but I can think of no reason why forgiveness should be extended by the parents of the murdered little girl to her attacker and murderer. If you are talking about forgiving small offenses and breaches of etiquette and the like, sure, we should all be more forgiving. But there are limits to the principle. I don’t think every offensive act ought to be forgiven.
Sorry about the spelling errors in the last post. Obviously, in the third-to-last sentence it should read “If there’s a God who wants to forgive him” not her.
First, I would like to apologize to John and the rest of you for contributing to the death of the “A First Draft of An Essay” thread. To revisit where the post began and the spirit in which the comments ended makes me feel very sad. I will endeavor to do better here.
Now to respond to john f. Respectfully, I do not find the legal definitions of slander or defamation of much interest in the present discussion, at least personally. In my view, the more pertinent issue is the conflict between the many ways people use history.
The Hinckley take on Marsh’s departure is not illegitimate. Certainly, people habitually construct or parse morality fables in past events. A better question is whether Hinckley’s take on Marsh is truly beneficial in the end. As long as people remain relatively uninformed about the past, I think the Hinckley Marsh fable is at least effective.
No one wants to be seen as the silly ‘Marsh character’ (and I use the term character on purpose) who in a pique turned on everything he loved and caused death and destruction to boot. I can imagine that those who buy into this analysis would find in it a reason to monitor their own thin-skinned responses in the LDS community. So there we have it, a powerful cautionary tale.
As I said, I think such historical fables serve a purpose.
I would also recommend, as I think Dutcher did, a re-examination of such fables for the unintended consequences they have. For those who see Marsh in someone else, rather than in themselves, it may serve as an invitation to trivialize the faith issues of others. In either case, what is almost completely overlooked in the story is the dangerous, confusing environment in which all of these events unfolded.
I prefer the approach of examining the episode in its context with as much detail as possible. It is a more difficult endeavor, but I think that in the end it repays much more handsomely. For me, seeing the turmoil of the times helps me have greater sympathy for both Thomas Marsh and Joseph Smith.
I have a great deal of admiration for Joseph Smith, but I also accept that his choices were as much responsible for the disastrous events that struck the early Church as it was the opposition of men like Marsh and Law. Whatever we make of Smith, it is clear that many within and outside the Church were not ready for him or his ideas. I think we can have some compassion for everyone involved.
For the people who loved Joseph, and those who love him today, the people who ‘just did not get it’ and who openly opposed Joseph Smith at one time or another can seem demonic. I see in them human beings who struggled to do what they thought was right. At the same time, I can understand why the LDS tradition is much harsher on them.
In the end, what I would like to see is an end to the mutual demonization of people who have differing relationships with Mormonism, be they faithful members, ex-Mormons, or anything in between. I don’t think that discussions like this will change this unfortunate phenomenon overnight, but I think it is important that we keep talking to each other so that we do not lose touch with each others’ humanity.
I disagree with the assertion that Jesus’ teaching about forgiveness and turning the other cheek is wrong although I agree that these behaviors can be some of the most challenging and difficult that we as human beings will ever face, even if God does expect them of us. Luckily, we can rest easy that he follows his own counsel and forgives us of falling short of fully adopting these behaviors required by Jesus.
Well said Trevor! I guess it is the 10 year antagonist in me that hopes that members can acknowledge who Joseph Smith was (and the uncertainty of all our knowledge about him for good or ill) and to extend this tolerance.
I realize that I am still missing the point. I need to focus on what I need to do, and stop proselytizing change in members that are frankly and obviously not interested in a changed perspective.
Leading and learning by example is such a drag! It doesn’t have the fireworks, alienation and tension that forcing my beliefs carries.
BTW — I wrote the bulk of the Wikipedia article that you’re quoting back in 2005 when I was actively composing Latter Day Saint history articles for Wikipedia. Prior to my re-write, the article had erroneously cited the Milk-cow incident as the reason Marsh left Mormonism.
Prior to my re-write, the text read:
“An almost petty occurrence in August or September of 1838 would have lasting effects on Marsh’s involvement in the LDS Church. His wife and a Mrs. Harris fell into an acrimonious dispute over the exact division of shared cream from a group of cows. Resolution of the argument was taken from the lowest level of church leadership, through several layers, to the Prophet Joseph Smith. When judgment against Mrs. Marsh was confirmed at all levels, Marsh is quoted by George A. Smith as saying that he would uphold the character of his wife ‘…even if he had to go to hell for it.’”
I missed the discussion here when it came out but I will say that the Millennial Star blog gave it some good coverage. With due respect to Wikipedia’s tireless collaborators, I believe there is contemporary evidence the milk-stripping incident did happen. It may depend on how one defines contemporary, but I discovered two mid 1840 sources [1][2]. Wikipedia’s source for “no contemporary evidence” is tertiary and gave the impression that Ludlow, who was quoting Smith and Sjodahl, who were reliant upon George A. Smith, actually made such a claim.
It appears to me some of this discussion may have been conducted under some false assumptions and I worry about people stumbling onto it from an internet search and becoming misinformed. Hence my belated posting.
[1] see “Richard Dutcher leaves church” by Ivan Wolfe especially my comments therein (87,92,99) on the Millennial Star Blog posted 4/13/2007
[2] See “Church Video on Thomas B. Marsh’s Apostas ” by John Mansfield Millennial Star Blog posted 4/24/2007
[3]The Journal of Henry William Bigler microfilmed in US/CAN film #465. I didn’t have enough time to verify, but this entry is near the start of the journal which was began during Bigler’s Mormon Battalion excursion according to his biographer. The entry reads:
[4]The first recorded telling by George A. Smith of the Thomas Marsh apostasy that I am aware of was recorded by William Clayton in Heber C. Kimball’s diary on Dec. 21, 1845: