Changes to the stories, Joseph's leg surgery in 1813

OK, in the church, we all grew up on this story of young Joseph Smith and his leg surgery. The narrative went that he needed leg surgery, but refused alcohol to help numb the pain the surgery would cause. Surgery at this time was VERY rudimentary, and killed people in its own right.

Working as I do now, I wondered if alcohol was the only thing they had back then.

1800- Anesthetic properties of nitrous oxide first published

1804- Japanese doctor creates “Tsusen-san”, and oral concoction used to induce general anesthesia. The combination was an over-dosage of several alkaloids, including scopolamine, atropine, aconitine and angelicotoxin. When combined, these ingredients induce hypnosis, analgesia, muscle weakness and lack of recall.

1805- Morphine discovered and isolated from opium

1819- Squibb Pharmaceutical founded and produced ether, chloroform (first produced in 1829), and cocaine for use as anesthetics

1842- Surgery with ether for anesthesia (had been used on animals in 1525)

1846- First “painless” surgery with general anesthetic at Massachusetts General Hospital

Sources- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_surgery, http://www.histansoc.org.uk/timeline.html, https://www.woodlibrarymuseum.org/history-of-anesthesia/#july1800

So, there wasn’t much around in the early 1800’s when the story took place, but there was a few things besides just alcohol. So, the first question comes to mind, why didn’t Joseph want a shot of alcohol for the surgery? Anything to numb the pain, right? We now have some sources that say that Joseph Smith Sr. was “a noted drunkard”. The book, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet by Dan Vogel.

For instance, none of the family mentioned his drinking problem. In an 1834 blessing on his son Hyrum, Joseph Sr. honored him for his enduring support, saying: “Thou has always stood by thy father, and reached forth the helping hand to lift him up when he was in affliction; and though he has been out of the way through wine, thou has never forsaken him nor laughed him to scorn.”¹⁸ His drinking was evidently excessive enough to have justified criticism had Hyrum expressed it.

In fact, he earned a reputation for drinking in Palmyra and Manchester. His Manchester neighbor Barton Stafford said that the senior Smith “was a noted drunkard”;²¹ Palmyra resident Isaac Butts said he had “frequently seen old Jo drunk”;²² and Lorenzo Saunders, who knew the Smiths well, remembered in 1884 how Joseph Sr. “was always telling yarns, he would go to turkey shoots and get tight [i.e., drunk] and he would pretend to put spells on their guns and would tell them they could not shoot a turkey.”²³Martin Harris told of an incident in the fall of 1827 when some Palmyra residents “put whiskey into the old man’s cider and got him half drunk” in order to get him to talk about the discovery of the gold plates. (http://signaturebookslibrary.org/joseph-smith-03/)

So, a number of sources, including his own son, stating that Joseph Sr. was a “drunkard”. How does that relate to the story of Jr. and his surgery? “Joseph Jr.’s refusal to drink any alcohol during his 1813 surgery may be explained as an internalization of his mother’s revulsion of alcoholism and for what it was doing to her family. If the son could undergo an operation without alcohol, he seems to have been saying to his father, then his father could go through life without it.²⁵” (Also from the same book as above)

So, back to the story that I grew up on. He refused any alcohol, only that his mother was to leave the room, and his father hold him. What his reasons behind the refusal to take the alcohol, there are theories, but we will never know for sure.

So, why am I writing this? Because something new has just come to my attention. It turns out, the narrative of refusing the alcohol may not be what actually happened. The church has an essay out now on this story. But in it, they quote Lucy Smith (Joseph Jr’s mother), and she uses some different words when recalling the surgery.

“Lucy recalled her son refusing sedatives and cords to bind him to a bed, asking instead for his father to hold him and for his mother to leave the room.”

“Lucy Mack Smith’s account of the surgery attracts interest as one of the few stories on record of Joseph Smith’s early childhood. Written nearly three decades later and after Lucy had embraced ideals of the U.S. temperance movement against alcohol, her account emphasizes Joseph’s refusal to take liquor for pain.” https://lds.org/languages/eng/content/history/topics/joseph-smiths-leg-surgery

Yes, the story we all know and love comes from, Lucy Mack Smith, History which was written in 1844-1845. (http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/3#full-transcript) And during that time, there were a few other options beyond just alcohol to help numb the pain. But the fact that here is specifically uses the word “sedatives”, that is significant.

Again, the surgery took place in 1813, and we first hear of it from this history in 1844, a difference of over 30 years! What is it with this family and not writing anything down when it actually happened? First we have the “First Vision” not being recorded until at least 12 years later (more here), now we have this story not being recorded until 31 years after the event. It makes you wonder how much of this was added to at that point. Especially considering that the “Word of Wisdom” came out in 1833 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89?lang=eng). Could she have just wanted to help out with that particular cause?

So, if that is the case, than Joseph Jr. should have been rather avid against the use of alcohol, right? Doesn’t seem to be the case.

“The journal of Joseph Smith reveals many instances where Joseph and other Church leaders drank wine and a tolerant attitude towards the consumption of this beverage is particularly noticeable.” (Source from Fairmormon.org)

“Sometime after dinner we sent for some wine. It has been reported by some that this was taken as a sacrament. It was no such thing; our spirits were generally dull and heavy, and it was sent for to revive us. I think it was Captain Jones who went after it, but they would not suffer him to return. I believe we all drank of the wine, and gave some to one or two of the prison guards. We all of us felt unusually dull and languid, with a remarkable depression of spirits.” (John Taylor, History of the Church)

So, drinking was not a problem. Maybe it was just beer and wine that were ok, and not the harder stuff? Maybe that is why the WOW specifically says, “Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.” (D&C 89:17) And the last time I checked, beer is a mild drink made from barley. You can also make it from wheat, so I guess that counts too?

I seemed to get off topic a bit. Long story short, the church is changing the narrative to a story that we have heard for YEARS. And then to find out that once again, the story itself wasn’t written down until over thirty years after the fact? It becomes a bit too convenient to have this wonderful story, after the WOW was made public. But that’s just my thinking.