Tar And Feathering

Dispelling the Joseph Smith Myth About His Tar and Feathering:

Mormons are taught that Joseph Smith was tarred and feathered because of religious hatred. But this is just more spin from the Mormon Church! It’s far more likely that, because they threatened to castrate him, the mob did this in response to Smith’s sexual misconduct…i.e., chasing after their young daughters.

1. The Mob Actually Did Threaten to Castrate Joseph Smith
   
   Contemporary accounts and later historical summaries report that during the March 24, 1832 Tar‑and‑Feathering in Hiram, Ohio, the mob not only beat, stripped, tarred, and feathered Joseph Smith — they also brought a doctor who was supposedly going to castrate him. This detail is reported in historical summaries on Mormonism and Violence, which state that those involved “reportedly threatened castration.”
   
   A more detailed description in historical retrospectives recounts that Joseph Smith was stripped and prepared for sexual mutilation — specifically castration — before the doctor backed out.
   
   
2. Threats of Castration Historically Imply a Sexual Grievance
   
   In historical contexts, particularly in Western culture, castration is not a random form of punishment — it has most often been associated with punishment for sexual crimes or perceived sexual transgression. Scholars note that examples of castration as extralegal punishment frequently occur in cases where sexual violence or misconduct was alleged, such as in vigilante contexts or lynchings where sexual fear was a factor.
   
   While the specific cultural pattern in 1830s Ohio is not as fully documented as later lynchings, the general pattern — that castration is viewed as punishment for sexual offenses — holds across many historical contexts in the U.S. before the modern era.
   
   
3. Later Historical Sources Connect the Castration Threat to a Rumor of Sexual Impropriety
   
   Though no contemporaneous 1832 document explicitly states sexual misconduct as the reason for the attack, later historical writers linked the castration threat to rumors that Smith had acted improperly with a young woman, Marinda Nancy Johnson. For example:
   
   Clark Braden (1884) claimed one mob member wanted Smith castrated because he was “too intimate” with Marinda Johnson.
   
   Fawn Brodie, in No Man Knows My History, recounts that part of the reason for the castration threat was suspicion that Smith had been sexually involved with her.
   
   Other observers note that a mob bringing a doctor specifically to castrate someone suggests that at least some participants believed a sexual offense had occurred.
   
   Even historians who dispute the veracity of the rumor acknowledge that the castration threat itself is unusual unless there was a sexual charge attached.
   
   
4. The Castration Threat Makes Less Sense as a Purely Religious or Doctrinal Punishment
   
   When mobs in the early 19th century attacked religious leaders over unpopular beliefs, they typically resorted to beating, tar‑and‑feathering, burning effigies, or legal prosecution. There are no major examples in American religious conflict history where doctrinal disagreement alone led to an attempt at castration. Violent punishment for religious ideas typically targeted public humiliation or property destruction, not mutilation directly tied to sexual anatomy. The presence of that threat in this event suggests the mob was motivated by something other than purely abstract doctrinal dispute.
   
   
5. Historians Do Not Universally Conclude Sexual Misconduct Was the Real Cause — But the Castration Threat Does Point in That Direction
   
   No primary 1832 source explicitly states the motive was sexual misconduct.
   
   Later sources (Brodie, Braden) relay the castration threat and link it to rumors of impropriety.
   Some historians (e.g., Richard Bushman) treat these rumors skeptically because of factual problems and lack of early evidence.
   
   But even historians who dispute the rumor acknowledge the reality of the castration threat. That threat is not trivial — it is symbolic of sexual punishment, making it reasonable to argue that sexual conduct was at least perceived as a motivation by some of the attackers.
   
   
6. Summary of the Argument
   
   A mob threatened to castrate Joseph Smith during the 1832 Tar‑and‑Feathering in Hiram, Ohio.
   Castration threats in history are most often tied to allegations of sexual misconduct.
   
   Later secondary accounts explicitly link this threat to rumors of impropriety with a young woman — even if not confirmed by primary documents.
   
   The castration threat is inconsistent with punishment for doctrinal disagreement, making a sexual motivation plausible — even likely in the perception of the mob.
   
   This shows that the castration threat is best understood through the lens of sexual transgression perceptions, not mere theological animosity. Even if it does not prove sexual misconduct happened, it strongly suggests that some attackers believed a sexual offense had occurred.

(Adapted from ChatGPT)