Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Latter-day Saint
James J. Strang and His Witnesses, More or Less Revisited

James J. Strang and His Witnesses, More or Less Revisited

Last updated on: June 27, 2020 at 12:26 am by Dan Peterson

James J. Strang and His Witnesses, More or Less Revisited 2020-06-27T00:26:27-06:00 Dan Peterson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

“A Crowd of ‘Witnesses'”: Extras being prepped (long before the COVID-19 pandemic) for a scene in the Interpreter Foundation “Witnesses” film that is currently in the very final stages of production.
(Photo kindly provided by James Jordan)

I’ve long had a particular interest in the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. (The Interpreter Foundation’s Witnesses film project is an obvious outgrowth of that interest.) Accordingly, I also have an interest in criticisms of the Witnesses. This interest forms the background of a column that I published in the Deseret News back on 9 June 2011:

Though little remembered today, James Jesse Strang campaigned seriously to lead the LDS Church after Joseph Smith’s 1844 assassination.

When the general membership rejected the obscure new convert’s claim that a secret letter had appointed him as Joseph Smith’s successor, Strang started his own sect, ultimately headquartered on Beaver Island, Mich. Like Joseph, he eventually claimed to have translated ancient metal plates and provided 11 corroborating eyewitnesses.

By 1856, when he himself was murdered, he had several thousand followers, including members of Joseph Smith’s family, former apostles and Book of Mormon witnesses.

That some Book of Mormon witnesses credited Strang argues for their sincerity, incidentally: Had they been knowing perpetrators of a fraud with Joseph Smith, they would likely have been far more skeptical of Strang.

But does the fact that Strang had witnesses like Joseph’s mean that, for consistency’s sake, modern believers in Mormonism must either accept Strang’s claims or reject both Joseph and Strang?

No. Because the two sets of witnesses and their experiences were very different.

The two sets of inscribed plates that Strang claimed to have found in Wisconsin and Michigan beginning in 1845 almost certainly existed. Milo Quaife’s early, standard biography of Strang reflects that, while Strang’s angelic visitations “may have had only a subjective existence in the brain of the man who reported them, the metallic plates possessed a very material objective reality.”

And they were almost certainly forgeries.

The first set, the three “Voree” or “Rajah Manchou” plates, were dug up by four “witnesses” whom Strang had taken to the plates’ burial place. Illustrated and inscribed on both sides, the Rajah Manchou plates were roughly 1.5 by 2.75 inches in size — small enough to fit in the palm of a hand or to carry in a pocket.

Among the many who saw them was Stephen Post, who reported that they were brass and, indeed, that they resembled the French brass used in familiar kitchen kettles. “With all the faith & confidence that I could exercise,” he wrote, “all that I could realize was that Strang made the plates himself, or at least that it was possible that he made them.” One source reports that most of the four witnesses to the Rajah Manchou plates ultimately repudiated their testimonies.

The 18 “Plates of Laban,” likewise of brass and each about 7.5 by 9 inches, were first mentioned in 1849 and were seen by seven witnesses in 1851. These witnesses’ testimony was published as a preface to “The Book of the Law of the Lord,” which Strang said he derived from the “Plates of Laban.” (He appears to have begun the “translation” at least as early as April 1849. An 84-page version appeared in 1851; by 1856, it had reached 350 pages.) Strang’s witnesses report seeing the plates, but mention nothing miraculous. Nor did Strang supply any additional supporting testimony comparable to that of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

One of the witnesses to the “Plates of Laban,” Samuel P. Bacon, eventually denied the inspiration of Strang’s movement and denounced it as mere “human invention.” Another, Samuel Graham, later claimed that he had actually assisted Strang in the creation of the plates.

“We can hardly escape the conclusion,” writes Quaife, “that Strang knowingly fabricated and planted them for the purpose of duping his credulous followers” and, accordingly, that “Strang’s prophetic career was a false and impudent imposture.” A more recent biographer, Roger Van Noord, concludes that “based on the evidence, it is probable that Strang — or someone under his direction — manufactured the letter of appointment and the brass plates to support his claim to be a prophet and to sell land at Voree. If this scenario is correct, Strang’s advocacy of himself as a prophet was more than suspect, but no psychological delusion.”

Thus, Strang’s plates were much less numerous than those of the Book of Mormon, his witnesses saw nothing supernatural and his translation required the better part of a decade rather than a little more than two months. (Quite unlike the semi-literate Joseph Smith, Strang was well-read. He had been an editor and lawyer before his involvement with Mormonism.) Perhaps most strikingly, unlike the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, some (at least) of Strang’s witnesses later denied their testimonies.

The contrasts work very much in Joseph Smith’s favor.

For obscure reasons, this nine-year-old column has suddenly come into prominence as a parade example of my supposed contempt for religious views that differ from mine. James J. Strang still has a few hundred followers today and one of them has recently taken rather angry exception to what I wrote back in 2011. Unsurprisingly, a small chorus of my most implacable critics, seeing his criticism, has now joined in as enthusiastic back-up singers.

My “Strangite” critic says that my column is inaccurate. That’s conceivable, I suppose. I don’t pretend to expertise on James Strang, nor even to any particular interest in him or his movement (let alone any ill-will or malice toward it), so I relied, in writing the column, on the best scholarship that I knew. I went, for example, to Milo Quaife’s The Kingdom of Saint James: A Narrative of the Mormons (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1930). Quaife (1880-1959) was a historian of Michigan and the Great Lakes region who taught at Wayne State University and the University of Detroit and directed the Wisconsin State Historical Society. I also consulted Roger Van Noord’s King of Beaver Island: The Life and Assassination of James Jesse Strang (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988). Van Noord is a journalist and biographer based in Wisconsin. My friend James Allen, who formerly served as assistant historian for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and as Lemuel H. Redd Professor of Western History at Brigham Young University, reviewed Van Noord’s Strang biography in 1991. It “brings admirable balance” to its subject, he said. Contrary to my “Strangite” critic’s claim, I didn’t pick “the worst quotes from scholars.” I didn’t cherry pick offensive lines. I simply chose passages that were relevant to my point — which was focused on defending the claims of the Book of Mormon Witnesses — from reputable scholars on the subject.

Of course, if there is better scholarship on James Jesse Strang of which I should be aware, I’ll be sure to have a look at it before I write on the topic again — which, honestly, I may or may not ever do. Of academic disputes, obviously, there is no end.

What most fascinates me, though, is the fact that my little column above is now being described as “bigoted,” “a hit job,” “unkind,” “purposely hateful,” “carefully orchestrated,” “designed to malign,” “mean-spirited,” a “one-sided hit piece,” “deceit,” “bilious,” “a one-sided hit job,” “deception,” “disrespectful,” “bullying,” “lying,” an act of “hate,” “spiteful,” “mean,” “nasty,” “desperate,” using the “tactics” of a “political hack,” and a perfect illustration of how I “just [don’t] give a damn” about “collateral damage” or the “feelings” of others.

This column of mine is the kind of thing that, if only they were aware of it and recognized it for the evil thing that it is, would impel the leaders of Brigham Young University and of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to condemn me and the editors of the Deseret News to cast me out in righteous disgust.

Well, the column is there for you to read, if you choose. Feel free to form your own judgment.

Uncategorized

Book of Mormon Witnesses

Previous Post

June 23, 2020

Four really challenging quotations

Next Post

June 24, 2020 Will ANYBODY be saved on his or her own merits, without the Atonement of Christ?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 March 2014 August 2013 February 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which disciple was known as "the beloved"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

John Andrew Peter Matthew