What did the Nauvoo Expositor lie about?

[Drewm777]

Good question. I don't know how the DNA tests work. I do know they are running such tests on plausible Joseph Smith descendents. The website is here:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/DNA.htm

[Programmer]

...

William law fully intended to become the top leader of the "Reformed LDS Church" at

Nauvoo, once he and his followers had successfully exposed the irregularities of the

bankruptcies of top LDS leaders, various real estate misrepresentations, missappropriation

of tithing and temple fund offerings, etc. Had the Expositor lasted another ten

issues, I think we can be relatively certain that it would have included exposure of

bogus coining at Nauvoo; theft of Gentile livestock in Hancock Co., for use in and

around Nauvoo; the misuse of Church funds in promoting the 1844 presidential

campaign of Joseph Smith, Jr., etc. etc.

...

That didn't end with the ruin of the Nauvoo Expositor: Accusations continued to be leveled at the church for another 50 years.

The Mormons and Brigham Young were practically acused of all crime between California and the Mississippi for a long long time.

[StBalthasar]

It seems difficult to assume the intention of a document some 160 years later...

But those who were there at the time and did something about it did not have the 160-year disadvantage. If you want to give the Expositor people the benefit of the doubt, hiding behind the "oh, we weren't there, we can't judge them" smoke, then logic would demand the same treatment for the Saints who destroyed the Expositor.

[GDTeacher]

The intention of the paper was to inflame the citizens of the surrounding area to violence against the citizens of the city.

It seems difficult to assume the intention of a document some 160 years later. I haven't read the Expositor in a couple of years. Does it actually call for violence? Perhaps the intent was simply to express the outrage felt upon learning that the publishers had been lied to by a man claiming to be a prophet.

No it did not, to my recollection.

[GDTeacher]

I would like a clear definition of 'practicing polygamy'. Does practicing polygamy demand consumation?

And does anyone remember the time when one of the apostles denied things during the Mark Hoffman era, and later had to apolgize for lying?

Another thing, what is wrong with being named a theocratic king? LOL

There are a lot of definitions of polygamy. In the Nauvoo era, with Joseph specifically, it would have included the following (according to my admittedly limited knowledge):

1. polygyny

2. polyandry

3. marriage that was illegal according to the 1833 anti-bigamy act of Illinois (We believe in .... obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law)

4. Does not demand consumation (just as marriage today does not demand it), but most would assume that two people who considered themselves married would consumate. (I'm not certain why people consider this such a big deal, but acknowledge that for some reason people think it is a big deal.)

I don't recall the apostle's name from the Hoffman era that later apologized, but there were a number who were involved, including President Hinckley.

I don't think there is anything wrong per se with being named theocratic king. I think the issues that the Expositor was addressing was Joseph's seemingly insatiable appetite for power, but his unwillingness to let it publicly be displayed.

[GDTeacher]

It seems difficult to assume the intention of a document some 160 years later...

But those who were there at the time and did something about it did not have the 160-year disadvantage. If you want to give the Expositor people the benefit of the doubt, hiding behind the "oh, we weren't there, we can't judge them" smoke, then logic would demand the same treatment for the Saints who destroyed the Expositor.

The whole mindset was different back then. The "frontier" mentality was one of fierce independence, including vigilantism. You can see it in both Mormon and non-Mormon camps in Missouri, Illinois, the Great Basin. I think we often have a hard time comprehending the minset of the peoples of the frontier that many years ago.

That being said, it seems unlikely that William Law and others would have invested their money and/or other assets into the Expositor if they thought it would be destroyed, unless he was just flowing in wealth and the Expositor was a mere trifle to him as pocket change.

[Uncle Dale]

...

William law fully intended to become the top leader of the "Reformed LDS Church" at

Nauvoo, once he and his followers had successfully exposed the irregularities of the

bankruptcies of top LDS leaders, various real estate misrepresentations, missappropriation

of tithing and temple fund offerings, etc. Had the Expositor lasted another ten

issues, I think we can be relatively certain that it would have included exposure of

bogus coining at Nauvoo; theft of Gentile livestock in Hancock Co., for use in and

around Nauvoo; the misuse of Church funds in promoting the 1844 presidential

campaign of Joseph Smith, Jr., etc. etc.

...

That didn't end with the ruin of the Nauvoo Expositor: Accusations continued to be leveled at the church for another 50 years.

The Mormons and Brigham Young were practically acused of all crime between California and the Mississippi for a long long time.

The Twelve acknowledged some of these local problems, but blamed them upon

lawless elements and upon Sidney Rigdon. Orson Hyde wrote in 1845, that once

Rigdon and his followers had departed for Pennsylvania, that the latter day sin and

crime departed with them.

On Sunday, the 1st of September last, Mr. Rigdon delivered his last public sermon in this city... His own language was: "Brethren, I am going to fight a real bloody battle with sword and with gun. I will collect a mighty army, and this army is to be composed of saints, worldlings, blacklegs, counterfeiters, bogus makers, but they will be all honorable men, and lovers of liberty. -- With these, I will fight..."

Sidney need not deny this; for some five thousand men, women, and children heard him... since the scum of Rigdonism has floated off from this place, taking with it the filth of our population, we hear no more complaint about bogus makers, or counterfeit money....

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/Hyd1845A.htm#pg15a

Joseph H. Jackson, says he has published all Joseph's secrets, but nobody believes their tales, because they lie! and if Sidney Rigdon undertakes to publish all our secrets, as he says, he will lie the first jump he takes.  If Sidney Rigdon knew of all this iniquity why did he not publish it sooner? If there is so much iniquity in this church as you talk of, Elder Rigdon, and you have known of it so long, you are a black hearted wretch because you have not published it sooner. If there is not this iniquity you speak of, you are a black hearted wretch for endeavoring to bring a mob upon us and murder innocent men, women and children! Any man that says the twelve are bogus makers, or adulterers, or wicked men, is a liar, and all who say such things shall have the fate of liars...

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/Grnt1844.htm#pg35a

William Smith, one of the Twelve himself, blamed the lawlessness upon Brigham Young,

as did J. J. Strang. However, it seems that eveybody agreed, that once the main body

of the Saints had departed, that things settled down considerably.

Emma Smith was able to live for many years in deserted Nauvoo -- and, as the

tourist guides to the Mansion House say, without even having to lock her doors at

night. Murders in the area (like those of Mr. Davenport and Mr. Hodges), died down

and Nauvoo became as peaceful as it was prior to the arrival of the Saints. A visitor

who filed a news report from there, in 1894, mentioned how a great many RLDS

had gathered to Hancock County, and were living in peace with their neighbors.

Whatever the REAL cause was for lawlessness and political/social friction between the

Gentiles and the Saints during the 1840s, it seems to have departed after 1846, never

to return -- not even with the recent re-building of the Nauvoo Temple by the LDS.

Nobody sees a need to re-establish the Expositor today it seems ---

Now just watch; the moment I say that, some splinter group will take up residence

there and attempt to gain control of things, just like William Law did in 1844.

Uncle Dale

[Bernard Gui]

Nobody sees a need to re-establish the Expositor today it seems ---

Hmmmm.....Richard Abanes, Walter Martin, Ed Decker, Tanners,

etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Bernard

[lizzy]

NauvooSaint quoted

"I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives....I am innocent of all these charges...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers." (Joseph Smith, Jr., 'History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints', 6:410-411 as quoted in 'Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy', vol. 1)

and then said; It would appear from this statement that Joseph believed himself innocent of polygamy.

No what he said was; I am innocent of all these charges...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.

He

[lizzy]

Dale; However, it seems that eveybody agreed, that once the main body

of the Saints had departed, that things settled down considerably.

Could it be that the threat of slavery being over turned might have eased the situation? The small community of Mormons left held no political power.

Joseph challenged the common assumption that blacks were of inferior intellect and no one wanted to hear it.

[Uncle Dale]

Nobody sees a need to re-establish the Expositor today it seems ---

Hmmmm.....Richard Abanes, Walter Martin, Ed Decker, Tanners,

etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Bernard

Well, none of those folks have yet moved back to Illinois

Colleen Ralson operates the "Nauvoo Christian Visitors Center" on Mulholland Street,

near the old Expositor office, and she gives out reprint copies of that 1844

newspaper to bewildered tourists -- but it appears that the "coast is clear" if anybody

wishes to take up shop in the "City of Joseph" and re-establish the Expositor.

Perhaps an anti-polygamous break-away group from within Elder Jeffs' FLDS?

Now, that WOULD be weird.

Uncle Dale

[Uncle Dale]

Dale; However, it seems that eveybody agreed, that once the main body

of the Saints had departed, that things settled down considerably.

Could it be that the threat of slavery being over turned might have eased the situation? The small community of Mormons left held no political power.

Joseph challenged the common assumption that blacks were of inferior intellect and no one wanted to hear it.

I don't think that abolitionism played much of a role, one way or another. True, the

Missourians were upset that neighboring Illinois was a free state -- but there is little

evidence that the Missorians were a real threat to Nauvoo.

JS advocated having the U. S. Government pay slave-holders for their slaves -- had

he won the 1844 presidential election and carried out such a policy, that would have

left many Missourians and other southerners rather "cash rich," and with a permanent

underclass of share-croppers to work their plantations (just as free slaves did after

the Civil War). But The Twelve were not anti-slavery. They took slaves with them to

Deseret and slaves remained there (in very limited numbers) for some years thereafter.

So, I don't think that the departure of the Saints in 1846-47 resulted in less abolitionist

rhetoric in western Illinois. The departure of the Saints simply meant the end of LDS

political advancement in Hancock County and surrounding areas -- and the depature

of a lawless "river rat" band of criminals who hung about the fringes of LDS society. A

few of those gunslingers moved west (elders Porter Rockwell, Jacob Hamlin, Bill Hickman,

Return Jackson Redding, etc.), but I think that, with the Saints gone and Nauvoo

reduced to a ghost town, the "river rats" simply moved to St. Louis, Galena, and other

more promising "pickings" along the Mississippi -- read Edward Bonney's interesting

old book on this topic, "Banditti of the Prairies."

Uncle Dale

[Dale]

The key women who claimed to be Joseph's wives either had affidavits presented, or had appeared in person in the Temple Lot Case. The decision of the Judge went against the testimony they tried to present. Lucy Walker & Melissa Lott Willis had appeared in person. Affidavits regarding Emily & Eliza Partridges story was presented. The legal problems with Eliza R. Snow's claim is found online on the JSFP section book at http://www.restorationbookstore.org if one is interested. Other problems with the Expositor claim's is found at http://www.hopeofzion.com/articles/polygamy_conspiracies.htm

The claim's of co-habitation between Joseph & the wives was examined in detail in that case & the judge thought if any truth existed in their claims he said they were but "sports in nest hiding." He saw no evidence of children. He didn't see claim's they roomed with Joseph as sufficient evidence they were his wives. He was not impressed with the affidavit's & court testimony he had heard. But he did not accuse anybody of lying he only considered the legal merits of the claims of Josephs wives he had been faced with.

The authenticity of D.&C. 132 was discussed & James Whithead said the 1852 copy had altered the copy to get it to allow for earthly polygamy. The only LDS response I have seen to Jame's Whiteheads report to having seen the original is to express concerns of perjury.

I am reading again in Sacred Lonliness by Todd Comptom & find it amusing to see how weak a case he has gathered for Joseph Smith being an earthly polygamist.

The only wives William Law could have tried to charge Joseph Smith with co-habitation was Maria & Sarah Lawrence. I think he formally charged Joseph Smith with taking Sarah as a wife. Sarah denied rumors she was Joseph Smith's wife. She died in 1872. Mariah is not on record as confirming, or denying the claim regarding her. So it looks to me like Joseph Smith with being quite sound when he accused William Law of perjury.

I do see some evidence for Joseph Smith being involved in multiple sealings which were pretend marriages because they never engaged in improper relations with Joseph. I just do not accept at face value the claim of purported earthly wives. Legally the whole list of 33 has no legitimate claim to being Joseph's wives.

I am not impressed with John C. Bennet's or William Laws claims. The affidavits collected in Utah don't impress me. Anybody can state anything in an affidavit. These affidavits were tested in court & they failed the test.

I have seen selections from, and a printed version of William Clayton's purported Nauvoo Diaries. I use the word purported because I do not know the orginal is really original to Nauvoo. They look like a deliberate attempt to later try & contradict Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith 3rd(Joseph's son) and Emma Smith who denied the polygamy allegations. I am open to it's authenticity if somebody will place it for independent testing.

---------------

I am always willing to discuss the content of Todd Comptom's In Sacred Loniness with anybody interested.

Fanny Alger-Unlike Todd Comptom I agree with Fawn Brodie that this was an affair rather than polygamy. Oliver Cowdery called it an affair. Warren Parrish had accused Joseph of polygamy, but Oliver did not agree it was polygamy. Benjamin F. Johnson was a secnd-hand witness. Ann Eliza Webb Young's claim to a pregnancy is unfounded. I understand she was probably two years old. I do not trust her father Chauncey Webb as a source. His big evidence was Mosiah Hancocks auto-biography and his fathers claim he had arranged the marriage. In the same document Mosiah had said he father Levi had warned him not to follow Joseph Smith 3rd. Basically he claim's Joseph Smith Jr,. had predicted his son would become a false prophet, and decieve many LDS. I noticed this phony prediction story which brings into question other things Levi said.

I think the Book of Abraham project has an online copy of the source so anybody interested can look these things up for themselves.

A thing that bothers me is in the case of Almira Johnson Todd Comtom gave an vague date for the marriage April 2-22 1843. Almira in her affidavit claimed Hyrum Smith knowingly approved of her marriage to Joseph. But I noticed in Mormon Enigma that Hyrum Smith was fighting against polygamy as late as May 23rd so it looks like Benjamin F. Johnson, and his sister could have been guilty of perjury in the letters & affidavits I have seen on this case. I do not see a way Hyrum Smith's presence in the affidavit can be proved at this time, but remain open if somebody can take my two books & explain away my problems. I can dig out the page numbers if one needs my references.

If Almiras claim's fails so does the claim of Delcena Johnson to being a plural wife.

Plus Benjamin F. Johnson's letter to George F. Gibbs is a source for the Fanny Alger claim as I recall. Plus he is used to say that one of the partridge sisters & his sister was actually Joseph's earthly wives.

As far as I am concerned with that study of mine of the Fanny Alger, Almira, And Delicina claims instead of 33 wives we can have the lists of Joseph's wives down to 30. And I only discussed three examples out of In Sacred Lonliness by Todd Comptom.

------------

But with the problem of his ignoring, or failing to cite the Temple Lot decision this brings into question other key sections of his book. What about Louisa Beaman? She had died long before Joseph Noble testified in the Temple Lot case to the location of Joseph's & Louisa's honeymoon. Unlike Todd Comptom I see no reason to believe it just because of a single testimony. Persons may, or may not be guilty of fraud when they state something under oath.

[Moksha]

There may have been a number of women who chose to keep their celestial dalliances between themselves and Joseph, a secret, not telling their husbands or others.

[grego]

i am amazed that with so much depth of knowedge here on this post, not one person has read any of the basic articles written about this incident.

hardly the one to write about this, nevertheless, for the most part, my thoughts are: what a sorry thread!

they certainly had the authority to close the paper. destroying the printing press was another matter, but one which is open. whether threats were made at the time against those closing the paper, or there were some other reason--for either side--which resulted in it, is open.

since, as you say, you can't get inside their minds, nevertheless there's a lot of trying to go inside their minds. so, can you, or should you stop?

why could emma stay? perhaps because the priesthood was gone.

dna? still waiting for one. the ones that were tried, showed negative. and yes, dna would mean someone in the smith family, not necessarily joseph--which means quite a few choices, and on the other side of the fence, too.

[Nighthawke]

I am reading again in Sacred Lonliness by Todd Comptom & find it amusing to see how weak a case he has gathered for Joseph Smith being an earthly polygamist.

How do you feel about those apostles who were polygamists? Why didn't Joseph Smith excommunicate them if it was wrong?

[Uncle Dale]

they certainly had the authority to close the paper.  destroying the printing press was another matter, but one which is open.  whether threats were made at the time against those closing the paper, or there were some other reason--for either side--which resulted in it, is open.

No -- the Nauvoo Municipal Council did NOT have the authority to close a business,

in the way that the Nauvoo Expositor was destroyed. What they should have

done was to have first filed a complaint, according the law, with a local court -- even with

an LDS Justice of The Peace -- and then they might have taken the court order to the

Expositor owners, and with this "cease and desist" sort of judgement, the office

could have been closed and the press shut down under a temporary restraining edict,

or some such thing. At that point either a criminal or civil case might have been brought

against the Expositor owners.

My belief is that JS did not want the additional publicity of secret polygamy and some

other clandestine activities, which would have been brought out in a public trial.

Therefore, the Nauvoo Municipal Council attempted to act as BOTH the administrative

and legislative branches of government, and to bring action against the Expositor

itself. Was there any way that such an act could have been carried out legally under

the constraints of the City Charter? -- yes, under the circumstances that JS later

outlined in his latter to Gov. Ford. Had there been a carcass of a dead cow, lying in

the middle of Mulholland Street, the Nauvoo Municipal Council could have ordered the

city marshall to dispose of that "nuisance," as a hazard to public safety. If the dead

animal's owner could later be determined, matter could have been settled with him,

independently of the removal and destruction of the carcass.

This was the sort of operation that JS and the Nauvoo Municipal Council attempted

to carry out against the Expositor, as though it were an unclaimed menace to

public safety that had to be destroyed at once. Without a court order, however, the

operation of the Council against the private business and property of Mr. Law and

his associates was illegal -- They "certainly had NOT the authority to close the paper,"

as they did, by carrying all of the Expositor, office contents out into the street,

smashing them with sledge-hammers, and then burning the pile of smashed contents.

Uncle Dale

[aaronshaf]

Wow, lots of helpful conversation but it doesn't seem like my question was answered with the simple list I asked for (or maybe I missed it?).

A couple of questions that I'd like LDS folks to answer:

1. Is it the general belief of LDS apologists that the Nauvoo Expositor did not contain any lies per se?

2. Is it correct to say that Mormon apologists agree with the assertion that the Expositor was publicly exposing what Smith was practicing but denying?

3. Is it correct to say that Mormon apologists think the exposure of Smith's polygamy was unwarranted given the uproar it would cause? If yes, then are you saying that it simply wasn't the public's business to know of Smith's polygamy and William Law had no moral right to expose it?

As you can see, I'm not chiefly concerned with the question of whether or not it was technically legal. I consider that a distracting sub-topic.

So far I summarize the typical Mormon response in my head as, "Well, the Expositor didn't lie about anything Joseph Smith was doing, but it had no right to make public what would have caused violence and uproar." I'm trying to get my head around the Mormon view of why the Expositor was justifiably destroyed, and *specific* examples of slander would help.

Thanks again,

Aaron

PS I'm at aaronshaf.com now. Do I know you, Nighthawke? I'm in Utah now so any of the folks I used to interact with... I'd be happy to have lunch with.

[James Clifford Miller]

I am reading again in Sacred Lonliness by Todd Comptom & find it amusing to see how weak a case he has gathered for Joseph Smith being an earthly polygamist.

The only wives William Law could have tried to charge Joseph Smith with co-habitation was Maria & Sarah Lawrence. I think he formally charged Joseph Smith with taking Sarah as a wife. Sarah denied rumors she was Joseph Smith's wife. She died in 1872. Mariah is not on record as confirming, or denying the claim regarding her. So it looks to me like Joseph Smith with being quite sound when he accused William Law of perjury.

I do see some evidence for Joseph Smith being involved in multiple sealings which were pretend marriages because they never engaged in improper relations with Joseph. I just do not accept at face value the claim of purported earthly wives. Legally the whole list of 33 has no legitimate claim to being Joseph's wives.

Fanny Alger-Unlike Todd Comptom I agree with Fawn Brodie that this was an affair rather than polygamy.

Unlike Todd Comptom I see no reason to believe it just because of a single testimony. Persons may, or may not be guilty of fraud when they state something under oath.

What is equally amusing about this common position, is that (1) it deliberately ignores the accepted contemporary polygamy of several of Smith's apostles, such as John Taylor, (2) it deliberately ignores the accepted polygamy of several of Smith's wives who also became Brigham Young's wives, (3) it requires acceptance of the improbable situation in which several other LDS Church presidents lived polygamy, but not the Church founder, Smith, who received the polygamy revelation, (4) it requires acceptance of the improbable alleged situation where Smith received the polygamy revelation and required that his followers live it, but wouldn't do it himself, (5) it deliberately ignores the testimony of several of Smith's plural wives including the ones who went on to become Young's wives also (if they're lying about being Smith's wives, couldn't they also be lying about being Young's wives), and (6) it makes it difficult to understand why Smith reacted as violently as he did to the Expositor's revelations which ultimately led to his imprisonment and then assasination.

Compton's assemblage of evidence is substantial and many thoughtful people find it very convincing. To dismiss evidence this strong requires real effort.

Equally amusing is that this position rejects that Smith consumated marriages, but accepts that he had an affair. Underlying most objections to Smith's polygamous marriages is a feeling that Smith was too holy and righteous to have had sex with his wives. I find it contradictory to hold that Smith was too righteous to have had sex with his wives, but unrighteous enough to have had an affair.

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

[Programmer]

Nobody sees a need to re-establish the Expositor today it seems ---

Hmmmm.....Richard Abanes, Walter Martin, Ed Decker, Tanners,

etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Bernard

HAHA, score one point for Bernard!!

[Uncle Dale]

What is equally amusing about this common position, is that (1) it deliberately ignores the accepted contemporary polygamy of several of Smith's apostles....

It appears that the 21st century revisionist RLDS history has given up on the old story,

that polygamy was invented in Utah in 1852 by Brigham Young.

There were just TOO MANY letters, journal entries, eyewitness accounts, descriptions

in contemporary Gentile publications, etc., etc. for even half-way educated RLDS to

go on believing that John C. Bennett, William Law, Thomas Sharp, and all the other

voices of history were telling lies about Nauvoo polygamy during the early and mid

1840s.

So, round about 1970 or so, fundamentalist RLDS switched their story, so as to both

account for secret polygamy at Nauvoo and JS's perceived strict monogamy. At first

the fundamentalists tried to make it appear that JS was such an idiot, that he simply

did not see all the polygamous relationships among his closest and most trusted

followers. In the second iteration of the new revisionist history, JS only saw the

polygamy of a few minor members, such as Hiram Brown and and Harrison Sagers --

but now, it seems, that the 3rd revised story has evolved to admit that JS knew about

the terrible deeds of Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, and "fought polygamy"

among the ranks of his own Council of Twelve -- albeit unsuccessfully.

I guess the only topmost leaders JS was able to save from this "fate worse than

death" were Sidney Rigdon (a known monogamist) and Hyrum Smith (a fancied

monogamist).

It seems that the powers of Lucifer were just too strong for JS to overcome, as

apostle after apostle got swept up into the hellishness of spiritual wifery. No doubt

JS fought valiantly, but what could one man alone do against such powerful forces

of evil! In the end, even William Law (one of the few remaining monogamists)

misunderstood things totally, and thought that Joseph and Hyrum were a part of

the polygamy overwhelming the Church.

In one final, brave effort, JS strove to separate his good name from those of the

polygamous apostles, seventies, high priests and elders of Nauvoo -- but all he got

for his struggle was death in Carthage jail.

As Catherine Smith Salisbury said (much to the delight of the RLDS fundamentalists):

"I was in Nauvoo a few days before my brothers were brought to Carthage, where they met their death. I shall never forget that Saturday, June 23, 1844, when I last saw my brothers alive. Joseph had preached a sermon to the largest crowd I have ever seen. It was his last sermon. I might say that it was more in the nature of a prophecy than a sermon, for he said, turning on the platform where he stood and facing some of the high priests and Elders sitting there: 'There are those among you who will betray me soon; in fact, you have plotted to deliver me up to the enemy to be slain.' The truth of this prophecy is of history. He was betrayed, and by his own alleged best friends. These same fellows attempted to assume the reigns of the church at his death. They not only attempted this, but they attempted to introduce obnoxious teachings into the church. My nephew, the present Joseph Smith, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints at Lamoni, Ia., is the true and only successor of Joseph Smith, the martyr. "

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/tribune3.htm#062494

And so it goes.

Oh Zion! --

-- Dear Zion!

Uncle Dale

[StBalthasar]

That being said, it seems unlikely that William Law and others would have invested their money and/or other assets into the Expositor if they thought it would be destroyed, unless he was just flowing in wealth and the Expositor was a mere trifle to him as pocket change.

Replace "thought it would be destroyed" with "thought the risk of it being destroyed was not outweighed by the risk of it not being destroyed" and we have resonnance, I think. Obviously (I think) people don't act in order to fail; hence, failure is not the goal, but a real risk.

Similarly, I do not think Joseph set out doing what he did intending to be murdered; he may have known his fate to be inevitable, but it was still not his intent. So what? It neither changes the actions of Wm. Law or Joseph.

We simply cannot postdict and then call it prediction. Rather, all we can do is speculate. Law's motives may be a mystery to us, but his peers at the time - who knew him well - certainly had a better chance of ascertaining his motives than do we.

That being said, perhaps Law was simply too stupid (or blinded by his own pride) to seriously consider the consequences of his actions (do we think satan set out to be cast out of Heaven and forever banished to Perdition?).

[Uncle Dale]

That being said, perhaps Law was simply too stupid (or blinded by his own pride) to seriously consider the consequences of his actions (do we think satan set out to be cast out of Heaven and forever banished to Perdition?).

As I tried to say, before Charlie shouted me down here, William Law was the leader

of a splinter group of Mormons -- monogamist reformers who either expected, or

strongly hoped and desired, to take over the Nauvoo Church. Leaders of radical sects

and splinter groups do not have to be "stupid" to convince themselves and their

followers, that God is on their side -- that their version of what is "right" and "wrong"

will prevail.

LDS always seem to overlook the fact that William and Wilson Law, plus the Higbees,

plus the Fosters, plus a couple of dozen other monogamist reformers were operating

as a religious soiciety within the city. I believe that they truely thought that George W.

Robinson, the Rigdons, William Marks, Leonard Soby, Austin Cowles, and other Saints

would join their splinter group in a short period of time.

But, if Charlie is right, these people were just a bunch of suicidal idiots who wanted the

Gentiles to invade Nauvoo, to kill them, their families and their neighbors in some sort

of weird mass-extinction. Where do LDS get these odd notions?

Is this what is now being taught in modern seminary and institute classes as part of

Nauvoo history -- that William Law started the Expositor in order to get Nauvoo

destroyed?

Uncle Dale

[NauvooSaint]

Were any of the women that were plural wives to John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Brigham Young, etc...living with these men during Joseph's lifetime? I don't know. It might interesting to see if these women were in fact residing in the homes of these men or are found to be mentioned in their homes on the same dates as Joseph was there, perhaps then a person could consider Joseph's knowledge in the matter. I open to hearing respectable dialog on such things.

I'm not interested in heresay or rumors. If people want to discuss specific evidence regarding Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy, that is fine and we can discuss it. It's not productive to belittle in blanket statements the intelligence or religious background of others whether in the RLDS, Community of Christ, LDS/Mormons or whoever. Maybe some are too willing to condemn a man as guilty on such claims or twist his clear testimony on the matter. I am not one of them as I believe Dale (not to be confused with Uncle Dale, although he is at times) is as well. I would hope it would be the desire of all honest men/women to seek truth and have the patience and courage to carefully weigh the evidence that could be presented in a court of law. To accept less is unwise, unjust and frankly sad.

Ask yourself......would you have accepted the testimony of the 'Expositor' if you were living in 1844? What would be your motivating factor in acceptance or rejection of the 'Expositor'? Was it lawful, righteous or just in the method to which those involved in the 'Expositor' went about their accusations/claims?

It is my understanding that after the original charges were dismissed in the Carthage courthouse, that upon the steps of the courthouse Joseph was accused of 'Treason' a federal crime. This required a federal judge/case and was not within the jurisdiction of the judge that heard the former case. If my understanding it correct, than regardless if what transpired with the destruction of the 'Expositor' the matter was closed, unless a civil case for damages had been considered by the owners.

I'm going to open a new discussion thread to tell my personal story in Nauvoo. (Edited Note: I've changed my mind for now, but I will answer questions)

Bradley E. Barnhart, priest (RLDS Restorationist)

Springfield, OR.

[Uncle Dale]

It is my understanding that after the original charges were dismissed in the Carthage courthouse, that upon the steps of the courthouse Joseph was accused of 'Treason' a federal crime. This required a federal judge/case and was not within the jurisdiction of the judge that heard the former case.

Yes, the charge of "riot" was was dismissed at Carthage -- I believe because the

prosecution could not summon sufficient witnesses. Technically Joseph and Hyrum were

then free to return to Nauvoo. However, they were placed in Carthage jail under very

questionable terms of due process, to await being charged on a second, more serious

offence -- treason against the Sate of Illinois.

This was NOT a federal crime and could have been tried before the judge then seated

at Carthage -- however, Joseph and Hyrum were killed before court could convene.

There was a strong case for the treason charge, as Joseph mustered the Nauvoo

Legion, armed with State-supplied firearms, in opposition to the small militia force

then accompanying Governor Ford into Hancock County. This was a serious mistake

on Joseph's part -- for he could have used the Nauvoo police and civilians informally

to guard the city limits. Calling the Nauvoo Legion into the field, in order to avoid the

due process of law on the riot charge, and then opposing the approach of Ford and

the Illinois militia detachment was an act if treason against the State.

Just as the Expositor affair could have been defused and handled better, and

in accord with the City Charter, so also the defense of the city could have been

carried out without treasonable action. Joseph clearly was being given very poor

legal advice -- and it was only after he decided not to resist the impending arrest

that he called in good legal counsel from Iowa.

If my understanding it correct, than regardless if what transpired with the destruction of the 'Expositor' the matter was closed, unless a civil case for damages had been considered by the owners.

No, the charge of riot had been dismissed against Joseph and Hyrum -- I believe

because the prosecution did not have ready witnesses at Carthage. However, as I

said, the treason case could have been prosecuted, since Gov. Ford himself would

have been a primary witness for the State.

The charge of riot was NOT dismissed against the members of the Municipal Council

and the armed party that accompanied the city marshall to destroy the press. These

Saints were later brought to trial, but again, sufficient witnesses could not be found,

and I believe the charges were dropped part way into the trial, or there was an

aquittal from the all-Mormon jury.

A federal case might have been assembled on constitutional grounds of freedom of

speech -- but, as a practical matter, federal courts in those days rarely interferred

when people charged with crimes could be processed in state courts.

Uncle Dale