During the early days of the Restoration, many Saints saw themselves in the stories of the Old Testament. They felt a kinship with God’s ancient people and believed God would deliver them just as he did Joshua and Moses in reclaiming their promised land.123rf.com. Used with permission. AI generated image (modified).

Abstract: During the early days of the Restoration, many Saints saw themselves in the stories of the Old Testament. They felt a kinship with God’s ancient people and believed God would deliver them just as he did his ancient saints. As a result, they used those Old Testament stories as models for how to conduct themselves and how to react to their circumstances. We see this principle of narrative reenactment specifically in the events of the Camp of Israel. Though from the outside the Saints were seen as antagonistic and fanatical, they saw themselves as replicating the events of Joshua and Moses in reclaiming their promised land.

Keywords: Old Testament, Restoration of the Gospel, Deliverance, Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith

From the beginning of the Restoration, Joseph Smith the Prophet started restoring practices from the time of Adam, from the Old Testament, and from the New Testament (Doctrine and Covenants 27:13; 128:18). These restored truths and rituals from the Bible included temple worship, polygamy, communal living, and apostolic leadership, among others. Practices from all over scripture were blended together.[1] The scriptures were a rich source of inspiration in the ongoing Restoration and evidence of the practices that were to be restored. Joseph often read scripture in a literal and typological style.[2] For example, he taught that members of the Church were literal descendants of Israel, either through adoption or by genealogy.[3] He assimilated more than just ancestral heritage from God’s word; he used scripture “almost as if [it] were a script and the Saints were the actors destined to reenact it on a nineteenth-century stage.”[4] In one sense, the Restoration is a religious reenactment of the history of God’s salvific acts of the past. I argue in this paper that the Latter-day Saints used a religious reenactment narrative to frame their experiences from the Camp of Israel and give meaning to the events that occurred.

Religious Reenactment

Religious reenactment is a crucial component of many religious expressions.[5] This phrase could be defined as actions or stories reenacted by participants to connect them spiritually to their gods. Jewish celebrations of Passover, Christian baptism, and Christian eucharist are all examples of reenactment that would be familiar to Latter-day Saints.[6] Reenacting various rites was seen as a way in which adherents could become participants in the salvation history of their God, the narrative of God’s actions to save his children throughout time.[7] Religious reenactments can generally be divided into three categories: ritual reenactment, prophetic reenactment, and narrative reenactment.

Ritual reenactment is perhaps best seen in Paul’s description of the Christian tradition baptism.[8] “Know ye not, that . . . [we] were baptized into . . . [Christ’s] . . . death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection” (Romans 6:3–5). This description makes it clear that baptism is a reenactment of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Someone being baptized is not only reminded of these key events but also, according to Paul and early Christian tradition, literally participates in those very moments.[9] Each individual joins in salvation history by acting out the foundational teachings of their religion in their own life. This is seen as more than just symbolism but as a literal connection between religious rites and the events they depict. This can extend to other rites such as the sacrament. These types of reenactments can be termed “ritual reenactment.”

This style of narrative reenactment extends beyond prophets and scriptural figures. For example, King Louis IX used Joshua’s narrative to both start and interpret his first failed crusade. 123rf.com. Used with permission.

Religious reenactments extend beyond the personal rituals of believers. Some reenactments are reserved for specific individuals or groups. For example, Abraham performs a reenactment in his offering up of his only son, Isaac, in similitude of the sacrifice of the Father offering up the Son (see Jacob 4:5). This falls under the general category of religious reenactment and the particular category of prophetic reenactment. These types of moments are orchestrated by God to teach and demonstrate specific lessons and, in a way, connect the events of a prophet to significant religious events. Not every believer is expected to reenact such painful experiences as Abraham’s, but often certain religious leaders are called upon to pass through great sacrifice and trial. For example, John’s gospel paints Christ’s life, death, and resurrection as a ritual reenactment of the delivery of the children of Israel from the bondage of Egypt. The children of Israel represent God’s children, Egypt is represented as sinfulness, and God offers deliverance through the blood of the lamb.[10] In this kind of reenactment, the pieces of salvation history are connected through physical actions.

A third type of reenactment, and the focus of this paper, might be termed “narrative reenactment.” This type refers to how we frame our own life experiences as reenacting portions of scripture. For example, in Doctrine and Covenants 121, Joseph Smith is, in a sense, reenacting a portion of Job’s suffering. In other scripture, he is also compared to a reenacting of Moses. Nephi used the typology of Moses as well to frame his exodus from the promised land and the subsequent episode with Laban. This style of narrative reenactment extends beyond prophets and scriptural figures. For example, King Louis IX used the Joshua narrative to both start and interpret his first failed crusade.[11] Even in the 1700s many writers were using narrative reenactment to justify the killing and stealing of Native Americans, even directly comparing them to Canaanites.[12] As one writer puts it, “Eighteenth-century New Englanders, in short, expressed themselves in a rich biblical idiom and embroidered their relations with vivid scriptural imagery.”[13] Narrative reenactment can be seen in its weakest form by simply drawing inspiration from scripture, for example, the Primary song “Nephi’s Courage.” In its strongest form, narrative reenactment can be used to create an interpretive framework from our life events from which we can extrapolate how we should respond in a situation. By employing this strong version of narrative reenactment, we can actively recognize the hand of God in our lives, give meaning to present circumstances, and plan how we might act in the future. Doing so is another way to participate in God’s salvific actions.

Each of these three types of reenactments help us to more powerfully connect with God and find a deeper meaning in religious observances and in our day-to-day lives. In this way every Christian can reexperience the foundational moments of their faith and connect their individual lives to the greater tapestry of salvation that God is weaving. It is precisely this narrative reenactment that the Saints used to weave in their story of gathering to Missouri with the greater salvation history that God offered the children of Israel.

Gathering to a Promised Land

The first step in the Saints’ reenactment was the designation of a literal promised land for Latter-day Saints. Echoing Deuteronomic declarations, Joseph Smith pronounced that the Lord had given the land of Jackson County, Missouri, as a “land of promise,” a land of “milk and honey,” and a “goodly land” for the Latter-day Saints (Doctrine and Covenants 38:18–20; 52:5; 103:24; see also Deuteronomy 1:25; 3:25; 6:3; 11:9; 19:8; 31:20; Joshua 5:6; 23:13.). This designation was first formally made on July 20, 1831 (Doctrine and Covenants 57:1–2). Joseph then sent a clarion call to gather to Jackson County. The Latter-day Saints were excited by the promise of a goodly land and moved quickly to obtain their inheritance. Approximately twelve hundred members moved from Eastern states to Jackson County by 1833. Saints then made up about half the population of the county.[14] This initial gathering of Latter-day Saints to their promised land marked the beginning of their narrative reenactment. The Saints’ actions were patterned after the actions of Israel and their entrance to Canaan under Moses and Joshua. The narrative of the entry into Canaan provided to the Saints both an initial justification and later clear direction when confrontations were experienced in the Mormon-Missouri conflict years of 1833–38.

Another parallel to the Joshua narrative came about through the assignment of land by lot. Those Latter-day Saints who went to Jackson County to receive their “inheritance,” after consecrating their goods, had their names recorded in the Book of the Law of the Lord. In the Bible, that phrase is used to describe those who had conquered Canaan and covenanted to follow God.[15] It is found at the end of the Joshua narrative when all the faithful are able to enjoy their hard-fought inheritance. For Joseph Smith, those whose names were written in the Book of the Law of the Lord were to receive their inheritance by lot.[16] Receiving an inheritance by lot is based on Joshua 13:6 and is demonstrated throughout Joshua 13–23. This emulation of the dividing of Canaan tied the Latter-day Saints to what they considered their literal history. In this way, the Saints used a narrative reenactment to guide them on how to act as they divided the promised land.

While Joshua was invoked as a typological figure for the initial land of inheritance, the Saints did not adopt the entire narrative surrounding him. In stark contrast to taking land through bloodied conquest, the Saints were to obtain their land by purchase (Doctrine and Covenants 57:1–5). The reenactment had its limits, and Latter-day Saint revelation adapted the narrative to the Saints’ current circumstance.[17] Despite their adaptations, using the narrative still created difficulties for the Latter-day Saints in Missouri. These revelations justified gathering to Jackson County but also implied, to both the Saints and other settlers, that the original settlers should be seen as Canaanites. The promised land motif motivated many to move rapidly to Missouri, but it wound up being connected with the conquest of Joshua. This led to intense conflict with Missourians. With Saints claiming that God had given them the land and that the local settlers would be kicked out, this narrative reenactment worked to stoke animosity between the original settlers and the Latter-day Saints.[18] Tragically, this initiated a chain reaction resulting in bloodshed.

Camp of Israel

The flocking of Latter-day Saints to what they called their “land of inheritance” precipitated conflict with the local settlers.[19] Settlers stated that the Saints felt like God had given them the land, which was a true representation of the Saints’ beliefs.[20] This theology and phrasing is evident in the narratives surrounding Joshua and Moses.[21] The nineteenth-century conflict reached a fever pitch in the winter of 1833, when mobs of locals violently expelled the Latter-day Saints from their homes and across the wintry Missouri River to neighboring Clay County.[22] In response to the ongoing conflict, Joseph received several formal revelations regarding the expelled members. The revelations again invoked the Moses and Joshua narratives for direction and inspiration.[23] In accordance with those formal revelations, the Latter-day Saints formed what was then known as the Camp of Israel to march and redeem Jackson County from the mobs.[24] This name is found twice in Exodus 14:19–20, describing how the Lord would protect the fleeing Israelites from the Egyptians, and twice again in Joshua 6:18, 23, to describe the Israelites fighting at Jericho.[25] The name adopted by the Saints demonstrates their usage of the Moses and Joshua narratives.

Additionally, the type of theology used in the revelations and in Joseph’s own conversation reflects the theology of the Joshua narrative. For example, George Albert Smith reported that

on Sunday, May 4^th, Joseph preached to the Saints in Kirtland. . . . Many of those who were to form the “camp of Zion” being present, he impressed upon them the necessity of being humble, exercising faith and patience and living in obedience to the commandments of the Almighty, and not murmur at the dispensations of Providence. He bore testimony of the truth of the work which God had revealed through him, and promised the brethren, that if they would all live as they should before the Lord, keeping his commandments, and not like the Children of Israel murmur against the Lord and his servants, they should all safely return, and not one of them should fall upon the mission they were about to undertake; for if they were united and exercised faith, God would deliver them out of the hands of their enemies; but should they, like the Children of Israal [sic], forget God and his promises, and treat lightly his commandments, he would visit them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.[26]

This theology is clearly reflected in the book of Joshua. An especially strong parallel comes as Joshua is preparing to lead the children of Israel across the Jordan River. Just as Joseph prepared his march by admonishing righteousness, Joshua at the start of his own march declared, “Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest” (Joshua 1:7). Joseph reenacted Joshua’s theology in the Saints’ preparation by preaching the importance of obedience with little or no warnings about preparing for actual combat. The focus for Joseph, with the Joshua narrative, was that obedience wins the day, not military preparation. In this way, Joseph’s narrative reenactment was not just in superficial terminology but also at the deepest levels of theology and action.

In the formal revelations, Joseph most overtly used the typology of Moses leading the children of Israel with only slight allusions to the Joshua account. For example, as Richard Bushman points out, one revelation states: “I [the Lord] will raise up unto my people a man [meaning Joseph], who shall lead them like as Moses led the children of Israel” (Doctrine and Covenants 103:16). This clearly refers to Moses leading an exodus away from war with the Egyptians, rather than Joshua’s conquest of the Canaanites.[27] Twice in these revelations Joseph uses the qualifying phrase, “unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me” (Doctrine and Covenants 103:26; 105:30). This exact English phrase appears only twice in the KJV, once in Exodus 20:5 and once in Deuteronomy 5:9. In both verses, Moses is relating the word of the Lord to the camp of Israel. Joseph’s revelation also states: “Whomsoever ye curse, I [the Lord] will curse” (Doctrine and Covenants 103:25), similar to the Deuteronomic declaration of Moses in Deuteronomy 30:7.

Despite the strong verbs in the formal revelations, Joseph at multiple points declared the camp’s intentions as peaceful and defensive. At times he even explicitly pointed away from the Joshua conquest narrative. In a letter written to the Jackson County residents, he stated, “It is not our intentions to commence hostilities against any man or boddy [sic] of men; it is not our intention to injure any ma[n]’s person or property, except in defending ourselves. . . . To take possession by conquest or the shedding of blood is something foreign to our feelings. The sheding [sic] of blood we shall not be guilty of until all just and honorable principles among men prove ineffectual to restore peace.”[28] Joseph clearly did not want to emulate the bloody Canaanite conquest of the Joshua narrative.

While Joseph’s formal revelations focused on using Moses as a typological symbol,[29] the rhetoric used by both Latter-day Saints and contrarians relied almost exclusively on Joshua’s narrative. Even Joseph himself made such allusions. For example, he used a Joshua reference when Edward Partridge, a bishop in the Church, was tarred and feathered in front of his family. Joseph, who had been tarred and feathered just a year earlier,[30] wrote the following to comfort Partridge, “We have nothing to fear if we are faithful: God will strike through kings in the day of his wrath but what he will deliver his people; and what do you suppose he could do with a few mobbers in Jackson County, where, ere long, he will set his feet, when earth & heaven shall tremble!”[31] This is an obvious reference to Psalm 110. That psalm anticipates future eschatological hopes while simultaneously referring backward to the conquest of Joshua.[32] Such a declaration must have been a soothing balm to a tarred Saint from his holy prophet. By connecting Patridge’s experience with the past triumph of Joshua and the future hope of eschatological salvation, Joseph is making use of narrative reenactment to give meaning and purpose to this event. Unfortunately, such succoring comfort was short-lived. As word spread of the formation of an army of Latter-day Saints, the Missourians burned down every building, around 170 structures, from which the Saints were expelled.[33]

Several newspapers published about the forming army. One could almost imagine a Canaanite newspaper in the time of Joshua responding similarly. On May 19, 1834, the Daily Evening Transcript, a Boston newspaper, published: “A fanatical leader, styled General Joe Smith, has sent forth, in the form of a circular, his pretended revelations from on high, requiring the aid of the faithful to ‘expel the infidels from the Holy Land.’ About 500 are said to be on the move, and they are armed with dirks, pistols, guns, and other hostile weapons. The prophet, it is said, has a sword more than four feet long.”[34] Later, on May 27, 1834, the newspaper Allegheny Democrat wrote similarly:

General Joe Smith, the leader of the Mormonites, has, accompanied by about five hundred of his followers; set out for the purpose of reconquering the “Holy Land” lately taken from them by the infidels of Missouri. Joe, it seems, has been stirring up his proselytes for some time, stating that it was the command of God that they should buckle on the armour of their faith, and enrol [sic] under the banners of mormonism; that their church was in danger; and that they must, if necessary, die the death of martyrdom. . . . We trust that the good people of Missouri will take care of these fanatics, and see that they do not violate the laws with impunity.[35]

The use of “Holy Land,” “reconquering,” and “expel the infidels,” demonstrates that the newspapers saw this impending conflict in terms similar to those of the Old Testament narratives. These reports do not take the conflict seriously, though. With a pejorative reference to Joseph, calling him Joe, and the classification of his followers as “fanatics,” journalists recognized the threat of violence but dismissed the probability that it would come to fruition. In this way, although the Saints saw themselves in a position like Joshua and his people, some of the newspapers mocked the Saints and their beliefs. Several other papers felt that a war was possible, even if they did not recognize the parallels to Joshua.[36] It is clear in examining Joseph’s reported words that Joseph used both symbolic and literal speech. The “armour of their faith” is clearly metaphorical, but the danger to the Church and Joseph’s willingness to “die the death of martyrdom” were both literal realities. For Joseph, his narrative reenactment connected the Saints both spiritually and literally to their scriptural history.

This conquering image was not just used by detractors to libel the camp but also by the Saints within the group. Once the band was underway in their journey, participants often belted the Methodist hymn, “Hark, Listen to the Trumpeters.”[37] Written only a few decades prior, the first verse speaks of enlisting soldiers to “march for Canaan’s land.”[38] This obvious reference to Canaanite conquest is cemented in the fourth verse, which refers to the battle of Jericho: “The trumpet sounds, the armies shout, / And drive the hosts of hell; / How dreadful is our God in arms!” That verse finishes, “March with us to Canaan’s land, / Beyond the swelling flood.”[39]

Recasting their coming conflict as prefigured by the Joshua narrative represents a form of narrative reenactment. In Joshua’s conquest, this modern Camp of Israel found fortitude and firmness. By taking a literal and typological approach to the conquest narrative, the Saints identified directly with ancient Israel. They “saw themselves as . . . arising out of the wilderness and journeying to the promised land, persisting in their quest despite daunting catastrophes and the fierce enmity of other peoples.”[40] In the face of a merciless and ruthless mob, the forcible disarmament of Latter-day Saints, leaders being tarred and feathered, and innocents being whipped near-to-death,[41] relying on the Joshua conquest narrative must have been a source of profound power to embolden and steel the Saints for the anticipated conflict. It likely reminded them of the security that could only be found in God’s strength. Just as God had delivered Canaan into Joshua’s hands, so too would he restore Jackson County to the Latter-day Saints. Just as God had given miraculous victories to Joshua, so too would he fight for the Saints now. Just as God was with ancient Israel, so too would he be with modern Israel. To this camp, just as God was, God is and will be.

Despite the allusions to Joshua, the march ultimately ended without violent conflict. At the banks of the Missouri River, before crossing, the Moses-like figure of Joseph was told by the Lord not to enter. It was not yet time for the promised land to be conquered. The Latter-day Saints were not ready to be led by a Joshua-like figure. Joseph declared in a revelation that there would be no fighting. In consequence of sin, they would be unable to redeem the promised land at this time but must wait “until the army of Israel becomes very great” (Doctrine and Covenants 105:26). Joseph “appropriated the Old Testament claim that occupance and permanence in the promised land were dependent on the keeping of the commandments.”[42] One commentator likened this to the battle at Ai in Joshua,[43] but the revelation itself explicitly uses the typology of Moses, not Joshua. This revelation states, “I will soften the hearts of the people, as I did the heart of Pharaoh [a reference to the time of Moses], from time to time, until my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., . . . shall have time to gather up the strength of my house. . . . For it is my will that these lands should be purchased; and after they are purchased that my saints should possess them” (Doctrine and Covenants 105:27, 29). Here again the revelation pushes away from bloodied conquest. Despite that, there is a caveat in the revelation to allow for a later conquest. The specific wording states, “And after these lands are purchased, I will hold the armies of Israel guiltless in taking possession of their own lands, which they have previously purchased with their moneys, and of throwing down the towers of mine enemies that may be upon them, and scattering their watchmen, and avenging me of mine enemies unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me” (Doctrine and Covenants 105:30). Then, returning to the idea of avoiding conflict, the ending of the revelation focuses on lifting an “ensign of peace,” not conquest. Perhaps in response to the indications of waiting in the revelation, Joseph declared that two years later, on September 11, 1836, they would again try to reclaim the promised land.[44]

While the revelation alludes more clearly to Moses, the theology of the camp of Israel is deeply rooted in the book of Joshua. The revelations, journals of participants, and Joseph’s letters all make clear use of the construct of collective righteousness. For example, Joseph writes about the failure of the Camp of Israel by saying, “Now the fact is, if any of the members of our body are disordered, the rest of our body will be [a]ffected with them and then all is brought into bondage together.” He laments, “Those who are innocent are compelled to suffer for the iniquities of the guilty,” [45] and in another letter declares, “This great tribulation would not have come upon Zion had it not been for rebelion [sic]: Firstly there were rebelions [sic] against the one to whom were intrusted [sic] the keys, & from thence it has spread down to the lowest & least member!”[46] This collective righteousness is demonstrated in Joshua with the destruction of Achan and his family for the sin that Achan alone brought into Israel’s camp. The impact of one person’s sin on the community is a central theme of Joshua and here is used by Joseph. Just as when he preached at the beginning of the camp on May 4, he again reenacts the theology of Joshua. Thus, this demonstrates that the theology of the Camp of Israel, like its events, was framed within the narrative of both Moses’s and Joshua’s promised-land conquest.

Post–Camp of Israel

Shortly after the expedition of the Camp of Israel in August 1834, the hymn “There Is a Land the Lord Will Bless” was penned by William W. Phelps, a Church leader expelled forcefully by the Missouri mob.[47] The hymn was then included in the first hymnal organized by Emma Smith in 1835. It looks forward to an eventual redemption of God’s promised land in Missouri by making use of the context of Canaanite conquest. A portion of the hymn proclaims,

Before the word goes forth—Destroy!
And all the wicked burn,
With songs of everlasting joy,
The pure-in-heart return.

Their fields along Missouri’s flood,
Are in perspective seen,
As unto Israel “Canaan stood,
While Jordan flow’d between.”

Though wicked men and satan strive,
To keep them from that land,
And from their homes the saints they drive,
To try the Lord’s command.[48]

Rhetorically, a parallel is drawn. Just as the Jordan River stood between Israel and Canaan, so too the Missouri River stood between the Latter-day Saints and Jackson County. Phelps compares the Latter-day Saints directly to Joshua and his army. The hymn also places this conquest event before the burning of the wicked at the end of the world. To Phelps personally, it must have been cathartic to compose such a psalm contemplating his eventual reinstatement to his land in Missouri. Affirming such an eventuality in connection with the sureness of a literal reading of Joshua would have given the beleaguered refugees hope in the actualizing of their promised land.

The third verse quoted above is interesting in its choice of the word “strive.” This connotes a belief that ultimately “wicked men and satan” would not be successful but only able to “try [test] the Lord’s command.” Here the command could be referring to Joseph’s declaration that the Saints were not yet ready to redeem the land. Yet by placing these verses together there is a hint that a Joshua-like conquest will yet occur. This hymn would later be removed from twentieth-century hymnbooks, ostensibly because the return to Jackson County did not materialize as anticipated.[49]

Another hymn written by Phelps was sung at the ritual dedication of the first temple in Kirtland, Ohio, just a few years after the Camp of Israel. With various references to cultic practices of the Old Testament tabernacle and future Christian eschatological deliverance, there is a verse in the middle of this other hymn that is relevant to this discussion:

Old Israel that fled from the world for his freedom,
Must come with the cloud and the pillar, amain:[50]
A Moses, and Aaron, and Joshua lead him,
And feed him on manna from heaven again.[51]

Here there is a blending of themes from both Moses and Joshua. Perhaps still licking their wounded spirits from the initial loss of the promised land, the Latter-day Saints still believed in both “a Moses . . . and Joshua” to lead them. They may have seen a Moses-type figure in the march of the Camp of Israel, as the formal revelations demonstrate, and a future Joshua in Joseph’s forward-looking declaration of the land’s redemption in September 1836.

It is difficult to determine if a delineation existed clearly in the minds of the early Church members equating the first march of the Camp of Israel with Moses and a second future march with Joshua. However, reflecting on this period years later, Heber C. Kimball makes use of narrative reenactment to explain the events of the camp in just this way. He writes,

Zion’s Camp, if it failed at all in fulfilling its mission, failed for precisely similar reasons to those which had caused the expulsion of the Saints from Jackson County; reasons which, in ancient times, kept Israel wandering for forty years in the wilderness, within sight of their coveted Caanan [sic], which they were not permitted in that generation to possess. Like Moses, these modern pilgrims beheld, as from Pisgah’s top, their promised land: like Moses, on account of transgression, they were not permitted to “cross over.” No doubt there were Calebs and Joshuas in the Camp, who were worthy. But the great event, in the wisdom of the Highest, was not then destined to be.

It was left for a future generation and its Joshua to go up in the might of the Lord and redeem Zion.[52]

Certainly, from an historical standpoint, the march of the Camp of Israel resembled Moses reaching the banks of the promised land. The revelation Joseph received on the banks of the Missouri River does seem to point towards a future Joshua-like conquest. Speaking of a future time, it states, “I will hold the armies of Israel guiltless in taking possession of their own lands . . . and of throwing down the towers of mine enemies . . . and avenging me of mine enemies unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me” (Doctrine and Covenants 105:30). Kimball’s journal is a perfect example of narrative reenactment. He has taken the events of his own life and narratively connected them to scriptural stories as a way to make sense and identify the purpose of what happened while simultaneously projecting to the future.

Beyond Missouri

The 1836 redemption of the promised land was never realized. However, the Joshua narrative continued to be a shaping influence through the years of the Mormon-Missouri conflict (1833–38) and beyond. By 1838 the Latter-day Saints were all but entirely driven from the state of Missouri. Due to some violent altercations between mobs and the Church, as well as published misinformation, Governor Lilburn Boggs issued his infamous “Mormon Extermination Order.”[53] It stated, “The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so to any extent you may consider necessary.”[54]

One newspaper published that the Missouri militias were going to “extirpate the fraternity of Mormons.”[55] In a twist of fate, it was the Missourian settlers who would stamp out the Latter-day Saint presence in Jackson County. Many Saints fled from Missouri to Nauvoo, Illinois, to escape mob and militia violence. A massacre occurred at Hawn’s Mill, elsewhere over two hundred homes were burned, and many women and children were forced to go without food and hide in the wilderness.[56] Opposite to what the Saints had anticipated, rather than the Jackson County residents being driven out like the Canaanites, here were the Saints being driven before the Missourians.

These motifs do not disappear after the loss of Zion. For example, in January 1838 a revelation given to the First Presidency stated, “Arise and get yourselves on to a land which I shall show unto you even a land flowing with milk and honey you are clean from the blood of this people and wo unto those who have become your enimies [sic].”[57] The phrase “milk and honey” alludes to Exodus 3:8 and also to the principles in Deuteronomy 1:8, 21. Those allusions use “milk and honey” to describe the same promised land that Moses would march to, and Joshua would conquer. In the case of the revelation, though, the First Presidency and others were headed to Far West, Missouri, not Jackson County. Their promised land narrative reenactment now was to be fulfilled in different locations. For example, one recent convert, Francis Moon, wrote regarding gathering to Illinois: “The Lord has said, it is a good land, and . . . I will give it you: who then . . . would not join Joshua in saying, let us go up and possess the good land, for we are well able. . . . We are journeying to the land that the Lord our God hath said he will give us!”[58]

The Use and Misuse of Narrative Reenactment

In the Saints’ history, the Camp of Israel is a clear example of using narrative reenactment to give meaning and purpose to major events and help guide actions in future situations. This reenactment provided those early Saints with rhetoric in their sermons and hope in their hearts for the eventual redemption of their promised land. Just as Joshua had to wander in the wilderness prior to entering the promised land, so too would the Saints need to wait and wander for their grand entrance. However, it is clear from the evidence that the Saints originally anticipated being able to retake their lands through the efforts of the Camp of Israel—so much so that some Saints were angry that they did not fight in Missouri.[59] It is possible that when their experience did not meet their expectations, they felt dissonance, leading to their concerns. The power of narrative reenactment is that it gives purpose and meaning to our current circumstances by aligning them with God’s salvation history. When we create an anticipation that is ultimately unfulfilled, that power can be turned against us as we fall into doubt and despair. This illustrates a danger of using this type of framework. It can set up false expectations that result in harm to the believer.

A more poignant example of the dangers of narrative reenactment is found in the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the story of Joshua. This tragic tale of narrative reenactment comes years after Zion’s Camp but uses similar motifs. When there was dissent with President Haight’s injunction to commit the massacre, some of the men were reportedly told that “there was not a drop of innocent blood among” the emigrants, who were like “the Gentile nations who refused Israel passage through their country when Moses led them out of Egypt.” The men were reminded that “when Israel waxed strong the Lord commanded Joshua to slay the whole nation, men, women, and children. Have not these people done worse than that to us?”[60] In this instance, a blending of the Moses and Joshua narratives did give purpose, meaning, and direction on how to act, but it resulted in tragedy.[61] Narrative reenactment led directly to a detrimental outcome.

From our study of the Camp of Israel and the Mountain Meadows Massacre, it becomes evident that narrative reenactment needs to be instituted carefully in our lives. Christians, not just Latter-day Saints, have long used the inspiring stories of God’s power to inspire greater faith. In its simplest form—finding hope and confidence from prior stories—this practice poses little danger. But we need to be careful that as we increase the degree to which we frame our lives as a narrative reenactment, we do so in a way that promotes greater faith, unity, and love. It is dangerous to set up false expectations for disciples of Christ or, yet worse, justify sin by reenacting a portion of scripture that is either misunderstood or not applicable. Despite this, narrative reenactment can deeply connect us to scriptures, to past prophets, and most importantly to God. To facilitate healthy approaches to incorporating a reenactment framework into our lives, I have provided some practical suggestions to empower followers of Christ.

Consider the original context

Original context is especially important when we are using a few verses or segments of stories to inspire those around us. A quick example is found in Isaiah 54:17, “No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper.” This verse has been popularized and can sometimes be used to help instill confidence in someone embarking on a difficult journey, such as a mission or college. Studying the context of this verse reveals that the Lord is speaking about a future restoration of Zion and not about current protection. After this verse is written, the Jewish people will continue to suffer and have many weapons prosper against them. When we take a verse out of context, we are not helping disciples in narrative reenactment; instead, we are setting them up to have an unmet expectation that can turn to doubt. It takes discernment and careful attention to the text to apply the circumstances of a scriptural story to our own lives.

God does not always work the same way with similar circumstances

There are several powerful examples of this principle given in scripture. One example is found in the different methods of God’s saving power when comparing Daniel of the Old Testament to the people of Alma in Mosiah 24. For Daniel, a decree was made prohibiting prayer to God. Similarly, for the people of Alma, a decree was also made not to pray. Daniel made it a point to pray publicly, while Alma and his people prayed only in their hearts. When comparing both cases, a similar circumstance had two very different responses. If we are to inspire others to follow Christ through reenactment, we must recognize the litany of options when it comes to how we live out our faith. If a youth is struggling with whether they should pray over their school lunch, is it a time to be like Daniel or Alma? This scriptural example demonstrates that one should be careful to consider if the particular narrative they want to use is the best fit, or just one possible narrative of many.

Not all narrative reenactments follow every detail

It should be clear that narrative reenactment does not mean that every detail of the story must be followed. With Zion’s Camp, the narrative details of a warlike conquest are obviously missing. This even caused some to feel doubt and anger. If we make use of narrative reenactment, we must make it clear to those with whom we are talking that specific details will always vary, and just because one part of a story is a good match for our circumstance and purpose, not every detail will be.

Narrative reenactment is not a promise of a specific deliverance

In a similar way to the previous point, it needs to be clear that just because someone has had experiences framed in terms of previous scripture stories, it does not promise them a specific deliverance of God. For example, someone struggling with infertility might find great hope in the Bible story of Sarah, Abraham’s wife. They may even find many parallels in their own life to this story, but those parallels do not guarantee them a child in this life. As we use scriptural stories as reenactments in our own lives, we need to be careful not to set up false expectations that lead to pain and heartache.

Conclusion

The Latter-day Saints demonstrated their belief that they were a literal part of covenant Israel not only by mimicking Old Testament practices of land inheritance and declarations of a literal promised land but also by the hymns they sang, the letters of comfort they wrote, and the rhetoric they preached. When troubles came their way, they looked to a typological reading of Bible stories. Reenacting their spiritual ancestors’ history in the nineteenth century gave them resolve, determination, and confidence in the face of despotic oppression. To them, these Bible stories were the word of God reaching through time to detail how they were to conduct themselves and explain why events unfolded the way they did. By treating the stories literally, they gained hope, and by casting them typologically, they gained direction. The tales of Moses and Joshua shaped their own founding of a promised land. We, like those early Saints, can powerfully connect ourselves to our spiritual past and find hope and direction by carefully using narrative reenactment to make sense of and find purpose in our lives.

Notes

[1] Milton V. Backman Jr., “Joseph Smith and the Restitution of All Things,” in Joseph Smith: The Prophet, The Man, ed. Susan Easton Black and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1993), 89–99.

[2] Grant Underwood, “Joseph Smith and the King James Bible,” in The King James Bible and the Restoration, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 226. Some scholars equate his literal style to interpretation, but they often do not consider all his teachings. As Underwood points out, Joseph does not always take the literal case. This point is made more forcefully by Melodie Moench: “The Mormons’ assertion that they held a literal, non-interpretive belief in the Bible is impossible to substantiate. They saw scripture in their own peculiar way, just as the other Protestant sects did.” “Nineeenth-Century Mormons: The New Israel,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 12, no. 1 (1979): 42–56.

[3] W. D. Davies, “Israel, the Mormons and the Land,” in Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels, ed. Truman G. Madsen (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1978), 79–97.

[4] Underwood, “Joseph Smith and the King James Bible,” 226.

[5] Paul Brooks Duff, “Processions,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (Doubleday, 1992), 5:469.

[6] R. Eduard Schweizer, “Body,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1:770; see also, D. E. Aune, “Worship, Early Christian,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6:986.

[7] Gerald G. O’Collins, “Salvation,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, 5:909.

[8] Aune, “Worship, Early Christian,” 6:986.

[9] Nathan Witkamp, Tradition and Innovation: Baptismal Rite and Mystagogy in Theodore of Mopsuestia and Narsai of Nisibis (Brill, 2018), 271–72.

[10] John R. Miles, “Lamb,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, 4:133.

[11] M. Cecilia Gaposchkin, “Louis IX, Crusade and the Promise of Joshua in the Holy Land,” Journal of Medieval History 34, no. 3 (September 2008), 245–74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmedhist.2007.10.007.

[12] See as one example, Ezra Stiles, “The United States Elevated to Glory and Honor,” ed. Reiner Smolinski (University of Nebraska, 1998), 10, https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/etas/41.

[13] Douglas L. Winiarski, Darkness Falls on the Land of Light: Experiencing Religious Awakenings in Eighteenth-Century New England (Omohundro Institute and UNC Press, 2017), 51.

[14] Cody Newill, “The Bloody History of Mormonism in Jackson County,” NPR in Kansas City, December 2, 2015, https://www.kcur.org/show/central-standard/2015-02-12/the-bloody-history-of-mormonism-in-jackson-county.

[15] The exact phrase, “the book of the law of God,” appears twice in the KJV, once in Joshua 24:26, and once in Nehemiah 8:18.

[16] Letter to William W. Phelps, 27 November 1832, 1, www.josephsmithpapers.org. Pragmatically, land was not determined by lot. Usually the goods and lands a family consecrated to the Church were the same property over which the Church gave them stewardship. This serves as another example of Joseph appropriating Old Testament motifs and applying them to his context. See Sherilyn Farnes, “A Bishop unto the Church,” in Revelations in Context (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2016), www.churchofjesuschrist.org.

[17] Joseph Smith taught: “God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill’; at another time he said, ‘Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted, by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the Kingdom are placed.” History, 1838–1856, volume D-1 (1 August 1842–1 July 1843) [addenda], 3 [addenda], www.josephsmithpapers.org.

[18] This attitude is discussed in the Jackson County conflict in Newill, “The Bloody History of Mormonism in Jackson County.”

[19] Many Latter-day Saints were antislavery, and they actively evangelized to local American Indian tribes, often voted as a block, and kept to themselves. These things were perceived as threats to Missourians. See David Charles Gore, “Mormonism and America as Promised Land in Joseph Smith’s Letter from Liberty Jail,” in The Rhetoric of American Exceptionalism: Critical Essays, ed. Jason A. Edwards and David Weiss (McFarland, 2011), 101–15.

[20] Letter from John Whitmer, 29 July 1833, 54, www.josephsmithpapers.org.

[21] Daniel L. Hawk, Berit Olam: Joshua (Liturgical Press, 2022), 2.

[22] Peter Crawley and Richard L. Anderson, “The Political and Social Realities of Zion’s Camp,” BYU Studies 14, no. 4 (1974): 406–20.

[23] It should be noted that many books of the Bible are quoted or alluded to in these revelations, including Isaiah, Malachi, Song of Solomon, Matthew, and others. Compare Doctrine and Covenants 103:25–26, Isaiah 1:24; Doctrine and Covenants 101:18, Isaiah 35:10; Doctrine and Covenants 101:3, Malachi 3:17; Doctrine and Covenants 105:31, Song of Solomon 6:10; Doctrine and Covenants 105:41, Matthew 28:20.

[24] Matthew C. Godfrey et al., Zion’s Camp, 1834: March of Faith (History of the Saints, 2018), 24.

[25] This phrase is also found two other times in the Bible, 2 Samuel 1:3 and 2 Kings 3:24.

[26] George A. Smith, “Sketch of the Auto-Biography of George Albert Smith,” Millennial Star, 27, no. 28 (July 1865): 439.

[27] Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (Doubleday, 2007), chapter 12, Kindle.

[28] Declaration, 21 June 1834, [1], www.josephsmithpapers.org; see also Crawley, “The Political and Social,” 406–20.

[29] Joseph even organized the camp “according to the ancient order of Israel.” With captains of twelve (not ten), fifty, and one hundred. See Deuteronomy 1:15. Joseph also was elected commander-in-chief of the armies of Israel. While that phrase does not show up in the KJV, it does show up in the Adam Clarke commentary that Joseph may have used. See Adam Clarke, Holy Bible: With a Commentary and Critical Notes, (n.p., 1834), especially page 613 for Clarke’s commentary on Numbers 2. See also Thomas A. Wayment, “Joseph Smith, Adam Clarke, and the Making of a Bible Revision,” Journal of Mormon History 46, no. 3 (University of Illinois Press, 2020): 1–22, doi:10.5406/jmormhist.46.3.0001; and Godfrey, Zion’s Camp, 38.

[30] John Corrigan and Lynn Neal, eds., “Anti-Mormonism,” in Religious Intolerance in America: A Documentary History (University of North Carolina Press, 2010), 74–75, http://www.jstor.com/stable/10.5149/9780807895955_corrigan.7.

[31] Letter to Edward Partridge and others, 30 March 1834, 35, www.josephsmithpapers.org.

[32] Matthew H. Emadi, The Royal Priest: Psalm 110 in Biblical Theology (InterVarsity Press, 2022), ProQuest Ebook Central.

[33] Crawley, “The Political and Social,” 406–20.

[34] “The Mormon War in Missouri,” Daily Evening Transcript, May 19, 1834, https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/19CMNI/id/7493.

[35] Leonard S. Johns, “The Mormonites in Motion,” Allegheny Democrat, May 19, 1834, https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/19CMNI/id/6449.

[36] “The Mormons,” Missouri Intelligencer and Boon’s Lick Advertiser, June 28, 1834, https://shsmo.newspapers.com/image/937272502.

[37] Godfrey, Zion’s Camp, 42.

[38] Hattie Hill and John A. Granade, “Hark! Listen to the Trumpeters,” Hymnary, https://hymnary.org/text/hark_listen_to_the_trumpeters_they_sound.

[39] Flood is used poetically for river. This is referring to the Jordan River. The camp probably envisioned the Missouri River, which they must cross to enter their promised land.

[40] Seymour Cain, “Judaism and Mormonism: Paradigm and Supersession,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 25, no. 3 (1992): 57–65, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/45227901.

[41] Letter from William W. Phelps, 6–7 November 1833, 119, www.josephsmithpapers.org.

[42] Davies, “Israel, the Mormons and the Land,” 79–97.

[43] Moench, “Nineteenth-Century Mormons,” 42–56.

[44] Godfrey, Zion’s Camp, 92.

[45] Letter to Elder Partridge and Others, 10 December 1833, 72, www.josephsmithpapers.org.

[46] Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson County, Missouri, 10 August 1833, [1], www.josephsmithpapers.org.

[47] Letter from William W. Phelps, 24 August 1834, 191, www.josephsmithpapers.org.

[48] Collection of Sacred Hymns, 1835, 44–45, www.josephsmithpapers.org.

[49] Michael Hicks, “Emma Smith’s 1841 Hymnbook,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 21, no. 1 (2012): 18, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol21/iss1/3.

[50] Noah Webster’s 1828 edition of the American Dictionary of the English Language defines amain as “with force, strength or violence; violently; furiously; suddenly; at once.”

[51] Collection of Sacred Hymns, 1835, 121.

[52] Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball: An Apostle, the Father and Founder of the British Mission (Kimball family, 1888), 77.

[53] Corrigan, Religious Intolerance in America, 74–75.

[54] Corrigan, Religious Intolerance in America, 82. A scan of the original is available online: https://www.sos.mo.gov/cmsimages/archives/resources/findingaids/miscMormRecs/eo/18381027_ExtermOrder.pdf.

[55] Corrigan, Religious Intolerance in America, 83.

[56] Parley P. Pratt, History of the Late Persecution, 1839, 22, www.josephsmithpapers.org.

[57] Revelation, 12 January 1838–C, [1], www.josephsmithpapers.org.

[58] Francis Moon, “Important from America” Millennial Star, 1, no. 10 (February 1841), 253.

[59] Wilburn D. Talbot, “Zion’s Camp” (master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1973), 78–82. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/5161; see David F. Boone, “Zion’s Camp: A Study in Obedience, Then and Now,” in Sperry Symposium Classics: The Doctrine and Covenants, ed. Craig K. Manscill (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004), 253; see also Letterbook 1, 88, www.josephsmithpapers.org.

[60] W. F. Storey, “A Parting Shot,” Chicago Times, March 24, 1877, 3–4, https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/19CMNI/id/7604/rec/20.

[61] For more reading on the historical context of violence in the nineteenth century, see Peace and Violence Among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints,” Gospel Topics, www.churchofjesuschrist.org.