FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

It is obvious to find relation to the story of Samson from the Bible and Porter Rockwell of Mormon history. Both were strong and invincible characters from religious histories, the source of which it seems long locks of hair. However, one must look at their true histories to find they really couldn’t be more different.

Cleon W Skousen writes in his book The Third Thousand Years, “The student will find some statements in the scriptural account of Samson which are completely inconsistent with the rest of the scriptures. This is because Israel had just passed through three centuries of apostasy and we have learned from experience that periods of apostasy do not usually produce good historians. There is not the same sense of sacred responsibility associated with the keeping of records in that which prevails during a period when men are in close communication with God.

“This point is especially evident when we compare the biography of Samson with that of Saul. Actually, the lives of these two men were very similar, but they are not written in the same. Both of them started out as favored servants of God. Both were extremely well-endowed physically. Both apostatized and betrayed their calling. Both committed suicide.

“Nevertheless, the unknown writer who left us the history of Samson seemed anxious to present him as a great hero of Israel whom God favored in spite of his apostasy. The author may have thought that by taking this approach he was doing a favor to Samson. But it was certainly no favor to God. It made the Lord a partner to all the stupid antics of a willful, defiant spirit who had abandoned his calling and betrayed his God.

“In contrast to this, the biography of Saul was written at a time when inspired prophets of the Lord were back in the earth, and this account is far more discerning. It points out that the moment Saul apostatized and betrayed his calling, the spirit of God was offended and departed from him. His subsequent career, like that of Samson, led down the deep dark road toward failure and oblivion.

“Keeping this point in mind will be helpful to the student who is reading the scriptural account of Samson for the first time. Had it been written up by a prophet of the Lord it undoubtedly would have been interpreted with deeper insight and therefore written in a framework similar to the biography of Saul. It would have emphasized that eh Lord was never a partner in any man’s sins even though that man may have started out as a servant of the Lord.”

Skousen continues, “It was not Samson’s growing hair that brought back his strength but Samson’s growing capacity to pray. His uncut hair had only been a token of his vow as a Nazarite. His miraculous strength had been a gift from God. If he were to receive it back again it would have to come through the beneficence of the same source from which it had come through initially.

“. . . Underneath it all was Samson, the son of Dan, the servant of God, who first lost his way, then lost his eyes and finally lost his life. It was the painful and sorrowful conclusion to a violently hazardous life that could have been the most brilliant and successful career between Joshua and David. It lacked only one thing – a willingness to obey God.”

Furthermore, Jewish tradition add that it was not Samson’s hair that brought back his strength, it was deep humility and anguish of having been put under the thumb of his enemies, imprisoned for months, and having his eyes gouged out that brought on repentance and restoration of his need for faith in the Lord.

Having now established the story of Samson for what it truly is, let’s establish a true story of Porter Rockwell from the facts - and not those of historians in apostasy. We know that the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith promised him that so long as he never cut his hair, no enemy shall have power to overcome him. At no time is it apparent that Rockwell rationalized that his power came from his hair, it seems he saw it as a symbol of his faith and his devotion to the Lord’s anointed Prophet on the earth. We see this evidenced by this simple fact that he, willfully, at one time did cut his hair. While visiting the widow of Don Carlos Smith, who had just recently recovered from a nearly fatal bout with typhoid fever, she had lost all of her hair, and Porter had his hair cut to make her wig. We know that Samson lost his strength after his hair was cut and was able to be captured and tortured by his enemies, but there is not one single account of Porter Rockwell having succumbed to his enemies during the time that required for his hair to grow back to its required long luxurious state. Why? Because Porter Rockwell was not an apostate, as Joseph F. Smith stated in eulogy, that Porter, “had never once forgot his obligations to his brethren or his God.” Not to mention, how could the Lord revoke a blessing by such a great act of charity and love, if anything, such an act of pure Christlike love would only heap open the blessings of heaven upon a mortal soul, not revoke them. 

Apostle Orson Pratt recorded in his journal that Porter had left Nauvoo from one to two months prior to the attempted assassination of Governor Boggs and had been in Independence and walked the Temple Lot, but had returned to Nauvoo the day before the report of the attempted assassination reached the Saints. Pratt was convinced that Porter had left Missouri a few days prior to the assassination attempt based on his time of arrival on horseback, because the news of the shooting came overnight by steamboat.

After recieving word that Bogg's was blaming the Mormons for the attempt the Prophet released a statement that he nor any other Saint had nothing to do with it, and had witnesses to his presence in Nauvoo during that time. However, recently excommunicated John C Bennett, and former Mayor of Nauvoo, released another statement to the enemies of the Church indicting Rockwell as the assassin, and accusing the Prophet of ordering it. Warrants were immediately issued for the Prophet and for Rockwell. The Prophet responded by saying, “The Destroying Angel has done its work, as I predicted, but Rockwell was not the man who shot; the Angel did it.” Bennett manipulated the quote for his own purposes, making it appear that Joseph said that Rockwell indeed did it and that payment was a new stage coach and team. The Prophet had recently purchased a stage to carry immigrant Saints from the river docks up to Nauvoo and Porter was usually the driver. Rockwell’s nickname “The Destroying Angel” was born, and anti-Mormon papers still egging on the Danite rumor began circulation naming him the “Danite Chieftain.”

Dr. Hugh Nibley respondes to the Danite rumors by saying, “[these writers] were not Elders but bitter apostates, nothing more clearly betrays the fraudulence of reports about this ‘secret society’ than the bewildering variety of fantastic names attributed to it by their authors, among whom there is no agreement. How glibly is describes Porter Rockwell as a paid assassin . . . He does not even have the fairness of Ann Eliza to mention that Rockwell was proven to have been far from the scene of the attempted assassination of the ex-governor - but mentions just enough of the affair to justify without evidence the title of paid assassin. How conveniently vague and noncommittal-and yet how shivery! . . . Is Rockwell a paradox? There is a simple explanation: He was a Mormon-and any attempt to analyze the man must be predicated upon that statement. . . . He was a Mormon. He was a good Mormon.”

Meanwhile unbiased investigators in Independence suspected Samuel D Lucas, a former political advisor to Boggs, as the shooter. Lucus had opposed Boggs’ campaign for the Senate and soon after the shooting fled town. In addition, a pistol was found in an alley just after the attempt, which belonged to a local baker named Phillip Ullinger. Ullinger had lost his business due to Boggs’ policies and usage of funds, which had consequently driven many small businesses to close their doors and created many enemies for the former Governor.

"On the sixth of May, 1842, Lilburn W. Boggs, ex-governor of Missouri, was said to have been shot by an assassin. And, in consequence of the injuries which we had received, suspicion immediately fastened itself upon Joseph, who was accused of having committed the crime.1 But, as he was on that day at an officers drill in Nauvoo, several hundred miles from where Boggs resided, and was seen by hundreds, and, on the day following, at a public training, where thousands of witnesses beheld him, we supposed that the crime being charged upon him was such an outrage upon common sense that when his persecutors became apprised of these facts, they would cease to accuse him. But in this we were disappointed, for when they found it impossible to sustain the charge in this shape, they preferred it in another, in order to make it more probable. They now accused my son of sending O. P. Rockwell into Missouri with orders to shoot the ex-governor, and, from this time they pursued both Joseph and Porter with all diligence, till they succeeded in getting the latter into jail in Missouri." (History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, Lucy Mack Smith)

Before April had ended, the spirit of persecution manifested itself once again. At an early stage, local citizens warned Church members that they were displeased with the arrival of so many Latter-day Saints, who, they feared, would soon overwhelm them. The Saints were primarily from the northern states and were generally against slavery. They also claimed that Jackson County was ultimately to be their Zion, that they were led by a prophet, and they had friendly associations with the Native Americans in the area. These claims were all very disturbing to the general Missouri culture. Several eruptions occurred including the destruction of the first LDS newspaper and the tarring and feathering of the brethren inside.

One evening, while tending to the Rockwell’s ferry located on the Big Blue River, a dozen Missouri passengers warned young Porter to deny the church or they would tar and feather him. Rockwell said nothing. Once ashore they simply left without paying. 

The mob came again on July 23, and Church leaders offered themselves as ransom in exchange for protection of their people. The mob, however, wouldn’t accept their terms and instead forced the brethren to agree that all Latter-day Saints would leave the county. The Church sought legal help which only infuriated the mob. Alexander W. Doniphan and other nonmembers were hired on the Saints behalf. The beatings, raping, and killing of members and the destruction of property, eventually led to a battle near the Big Blue River. Governor Dunklin interceded and instructed Colonel Thomas Pitcher to disarm both sides. However, Colonel Pitcher’s sympathies were with the mob, and on a promise of peace took the weapons from the Saints and delivered them to the mob. The Missourians showed no yielding of their violent and unconstitutional behavior toward the Latter-day Saints. A petition was formed to fight back, and Porter signed it. This is the only first and only evidence of Porter’s involvement with any organized rebellions among the Saints. However, once the Prophet received word of this petition he refuted it completely as unchristian behavior. The Prophet stated, "If a man was going to hell I would not let any man disturb him. While we will be the last to oppress, we will be the last to be driven from our post. Peace be still, bury the hatchet and the sword, the sound of war is dreadful in my ear. But any man who will not fight for his wife and children is a coward". It seems the words of the Prophet made many of the brethren reconsider their conduct, as it seems it did with Porter, some of the brethren still instigated and antagonized their Missouri neighbors, and bitter tensions only escalated.

Lorenzo Dow Young recorded in his journal, “In the latter part of the summer, I found he [Dr. Sampson Avard] was in Far West among the Saints holding secret meetings attended by few who were especially invited. I was one of the favored few. I found the gathering to be a meeting of a secret organization of which, so far as I could learn by diligent inquiry, he was the originator and over which he presided. He stated that the title by which the members of the society were known, ‘Danites,’ interpreted meant ‘Destroying Angels,’ and also that the object of the organization was to take vengeance on their enemies.  . . The teachings and proceedings appeared to be wicked, blood-thirsty, and in direct antagonism to the principles taught by the leaders of the Church and the Elders generally. I felt a curious interest in these proceedings and determined to hold my peace and see what would develop.”

After the meeting Lorenzo met with his brother Brigham Young and related the meeting. Brigham said the Prophet Joseph had suspected Avard of something suspicious based upon his bitter spirit and that he, Brigham, would go to inform Joseph. Avard and others who would not denounce their secret combination were immediately excommunicated by the leaders of the Church, and the end of the Danites in the Church. However, rumors of the secret society continued to be boasted to the Missourians by Avard and his supporters to cause more persecution toward the Saints and the rumors have never ceased to abound, even to this day.

Dr. Hugh Nibley states, "There was every evidence that the Mormons had maintained, in their earlier days . . . and perhaps still in Utah . . . a special secret-service force to frighten off or even dispose of dangerous enemies of the Church." The feeble ‘perhaps’ pulls the props out from under ‘every evidence,’ but every evidence is pretty strong; let us by all means have a look at every evidence, which is conveniently contained in the very next paragraph, taken from J. C. Bennett and John Hyde: "Certainly, in 1838 . . . the Mormons had formed a 'death society,' as Elder John Hyde labeled it. John Hyde was not an elder but a bitter apostate, and the ‘death society’ was indeed his invention. Nothing more clearly betrays the fraudulence of reports about Wallace's ‘special service’ than the bewildering variety of fantastic names attributed to it by their authors, among whom there is no agreement. Mr. Wallace, magisterially discoursing on a number of these, can tell us how they chose first one name and then another, until "the Sons of Dan, soon shortened to Danites, was permanently adopted." How does he know all this? Well, how do the others come by their information? Never mind, there is ‘every evidence . . . perhaps’ for Danites in the halls of the Walker House. Is anything utterly impossible?

 “With the reader thus dazed and off-balance, Wallace follows through with elan. How glibly he next describes Porter Rockwell as a paid assassin, ‘a long-haired man who was said to have shot the governor of Missouri!’ He does not even have the fairness of Ann Eliza to mention that Rockwell was proven to have been far from the scene of the attempted assassination of an ex-governor—but mentions just enough of the affair to justify without evidence the title of paid assassin. The next step is obvious, as Wallace reports that under Rockwell and Hickman, ‘who published his confessions of mayhem in a paperback book in 1870, the Danite idea seemed to survive the exodus west.’ The Danite idea? Seemed to survive? How conveniently vague and noncommittal—and yet how shivery!

“A favorite trick of the anti-Mormon teratologists, desperately casting about them for something in the way of evidence, is to appeal to general principles to support their grim particulars . . . Is Rockwell a paradox? There is a simple explanation: He was a Mormon—and any attempt to analyze the man must be predicated upon that statement. . . . He was a Mormon. He was a good Mormon . . . Granted the general principle, all particulars are readily explained. But how do we prove the general principles? By the grizzly particulars, of course, the case of the notorious Porter Rockwell—was there ever a bloodier villain? You ask the particulars? Well, ‘the newspapers of that day were full of complaints of Mormon thefts and raids and Porter Rockwell's name appears early. . . . Witness an item from the Burlington Hawkeye and Iowa Patriot.’ Again the lone item from the bursting archives, and it turns out to be a story in which Porter Rockwell is not mentioned, the story of how when some goods were stolen someone suggested looking for them in the skiff of a certain Mormon; the skiff was searched and the stolen goods were not there. End of story. And this is what they dish up as evidence of the early depredations of Porter Rockwell. Never mind that Rockwell isn't in the story, and that the Mormon didn't steal the stuff—you get the idea.

“There is great local concern lest the authorities learn of what has happened at Mountain Meadows; Brigham Young must of course be told, but it is perfectly clear that neither he nor any other of the ‘authorities’ knew anything about the tragedy. Since this is supposed to have been a Danite job, though Lee makes no mention whatever of Danites, Kelly and Birney sagely observe that though Porter Rockwell was in Salt Lake City at the time, still he could have arranged it. But if a historian is allowed to present as history anything that could have happened, there is no limit to his license. There are some common-sense questions, however, which every historian should ask himself. Kelly and Birney, while generally avoiding these questions, do ask themselves one at the end of their book, but leave it unanswered with a bewildered shaking of the head: ‘When one considers Rockwell's record it is strange indeed that he was never in a gun fight. . . . The friends and relatives of his victims were legion, but no man took it upon himself to exterminate the exterminator. . . . It is difficult to understand why some professional bad-man from California or Missouri . . . did not take a pot shot at the Danite chieftain just for luck.’

 “This impossible discrepancy between ‘Rockwell's record,’ as Kelly and Birney see it, and the facts is not just strange, it is preposterous. The real record must be brought into line with the Porter Rockwell myth at all cost: Does the keenly observant Jules Remy find Rockwell a paragon of men, nature's nobleman in a deluxe edition? In that case "historical accuracy makes it necessary to amend that charming pen-portrait’ By appeal to ‘Achilles!’ Is Mr. Fitz Hugh Ludlow equally impressed? He must remind himself that this fine man cannot possibly be the real Rockwell: ‘No one ignorant of his character would take him on sight for a man of bad disposition in any sense. . . . It seemed strange to be riding in the carriage and by the side of a man, who, if universal report among the Gentiles were correct, would not hesitate to cut my throat at the Church's orders.’ So Ludlow's invaluable firsthand report turns out to be nothing but a report on prevailing Gentile rumor. Was Rockwell shown to be in Nauvoo when somebody shot at Boggs? Well, put it this way: ‘In an incredibly short time Porter Rockwell was back in Nauvoo (assisted by a relay of horses provided by the Prophet) bringing the glorious tidings of the death of Boggs.’ Incredible it may be—but we've got to have a story. Was Rockwell in Salt Lake during the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Well, he ‘could have told Ginn . . . that orders had been issued and awaited only execution by the chief of the Danites and his subordinates.’ Couldn't he? Couldn't Ann Eliza? Where Rockwell is clearly exonerated in a shooting, ‘one must read between the lines in order to understand the facts.’

“The most revealing commentary on the art of creating Danites out of nothing is Kelly and Birney's last chapter. A few examples: ‘More than thirty years ago the Society of Friends spent several hundred thousand dollars on a large irrigation project on the Sevier River. Nothing remains of that endeavor but an abandoned schoolhouse. . . . The gentle Quakers were taken 'over the rim' by Porter Rockwell's ghost.’ Just what is the charge here—that Porter Rockwell, dead for over twenty years, attacked the Quakers? That they were assassinated? That the Mormons wrecked their project? Here the critics show their hand—this is the quality of their vaunted historical objectivity. HUGH NIBLEY: TINKLING SYMBOLS AND SOUNDING BRASS

Orrin Porter Rockwell was visiting in California and called to see the widow of Don Carlos Smith. She was convalescing from typhoid fever which had caused her to lose her beautiful hair. Rockwell had never cut his hair for many years, insisting that Joseph Smith had once told him that as long as he wore his hair long, no enemy would ever have power over him. For this reason his thick, glossy hair fell down over his shoulders. As the bald widow admired his long, wavy hair, tears came to her eyes, revealing her secret thoughts. "Yes," replied Rockwell, "your wish will not be overlooked. Few men did I love as I loved Don Carlos, and it will never be said of me that I passed up an opportunity to do his widow a favor." At a barber shop the long locks were shorn and made into a toupee. It was a source of happiness when Rockwell presented the coveted gift to the widow. (E. Cecil McGavin, Nauvoo the Beautiful, 202)

In recording this prophecy, biographer Harold Schindler says: "The story of Joseph's prophecy spread throughout Nauvoo within days, but the prophet's exact words were never recorded. Rockwell himself mentioned the prophecy to his friends and family on many occasions. A journal notation made the following morning which refers to the incident can be found in James Jepson, "Memoirs and Experiences," manuscript, 9-10. For additional evidence see T. B. H. Stenhouse, Rocky Mountain Saints: A Full and Complete History of the Mormons, From the First Vision of Joseph Smith to the Last Courtship of Brigham Young, New York, 1873, 140n; George W. Bean, Autobiography, compiled by Flora Diana Bean Horne. Salt Lake City, 1945, 175; and Mrs. Elizabeth D. E. Roundy's letter to the LDS Church explaining her part in writing Rockwell's life history at his request. The letter is on file in the Church Historian's Library" (Harold Schindler, Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God, Son of Thunder [Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, 1966], 109). (Harold Schindler, Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God, Son of Thunder (Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, 1966), 108-9.)

?