Historian Benjamin Park: Would Joseph Smith be "Progressive" or "Conservative" in Today's Political Landscape?

[smac97]

‘Mormon Land’: Would Joseph Smith be a progressive or conservative in today’s political landscape?

A Grok summary:

Quote

The 28 October 2026 Salt Lake Tribune “Mormon Land” item is a promotional summary of a podcast episode featuring historian Benjamin E. Park on Joseph Smith’s 1844 U.S. presidential candidacy.

The article states that Smith launched the campaign after the Latter-day Saints had been driven from multiple states and after federal and state authorities declined to provide redress for their losses. It characterizes the candidacy as a protest effort intended to represent religious minorities and other groups outside the major parties.

It quotes historian Richard L. Bushman to the effect that Smith “seemed to identify with all of the underdogs in society” and that he believed “the little people, the beat-up people, would rise and select him.”

It reports Park’s assessment that elements of Smith’s platform can be described as progressive and other elements as conservative, and that Smith was anti-slavery but not an abolitionist.

The article notes that the episode addresses the historical context of the campaign, differences from contemporary partisan conditions, and possible applications of Smith’s political positions for present-day members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

No platform text, specific policy proposals, or primary-source quotations from Smith are reproduced in the article.

The article, being promotional, is pretty thin.  Nevertheless, labeling elements of an 1844 platform “progressive” or “conservative” using 21st-century categories is almost always anachronistic. Joseph's platform (detailed in his “Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States”) included proposals such as a national bank, gradual compensated emancipation with colonization, annexation of Texas, prison reform, and a stronger federal role in protecting minority rights against state-level mobs. Those positions can be described in period terms (Whig-adjacent economic nationalism, limited anti-slavery sentiment short of immediate abolition, minority-rights advocacy born of persecution). Mapping them onto today’s left-right spectrum requires selecting which modern associations to emphasize and which to ignore.

Park’s broader scholarship (especially Kingdom of Nauvoo) emphasizes Smith’s late-period theocratic Council of Fifty, his criticism of existing constitutional arrangements as insufficient to protect the Saints, and his willingness to contemplate a more centralized, revelation-guided political order. That is a legitimate historical observation.

It is also easy to read in ways that flatter contemporary preferences for activist government or minority-rights rhetoric while downplaying Smith’s repeated affirmations of the Constitution as inspired (D&C 98, 101), his practical experience of mob rule and political betrayal, his patriarchal and polygamous family order, and his expectation of a theocratic millennium, none of which would seem to mesh well with modern notions of a secular progressive state (modern notions of conservatism likewise don't map very well).

Anyway, thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

‘Mormon Land’: Would Joseph Smith be a progressive or conservative in today’s political landscape?

A Grok summary:

The article, being promotional, is pretty thin.  Nevertheless, labeling elements of an 1844 platform “progressive” or “conservative” using 21st-century categories is almost always anachronistic. Joseph's platform (detailed in his “Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States”) included proposals such as a national bank, gradual compensated emancipation with colonization, annexation of Texas, prison reform, and a stronger federal role in protecting minority rights against state-level mobs. Those positions can be described in period terms (Whig-adjacent economic nationalism, limited anti-slavery sentiment short of immediate abolition, minority-rights advocacy born of persecution). Mapping them onto today’s left-right spectrum requires selecting which modern associations to emphasize and which to ignore.

Park’s broader scholarship (especially Kingdom of Nauvoo) emphasizes Smith’s late-period theocratic Council of Fifty, his criticism of existing constitutional arrangements as insufficient to protect the Saints, and his willingness to contemplate a more centralized, revelation-guided political order. That is a legitimate historical observation.

It is also easy to read in ways that flatter contemporary preferences for activist government or minority-rights rhetoric while downplaying Smith’s repeated affirmations of the Constitution as inspired (D&C 98, 101), his practical experience of mob rule and political betrayal, his patriarchal and polygamous family order, and his expectation of a theocratic millennium, none of which would seem to mesh well with modern notions of a secular progressive state (modern notions of conservatism likewise don't map very well).

Anyway, thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Like the Saviour, he'd be progressive.

[teddyaware]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Like the Saviour, he'd be progressive.

Thank you for this! For some reason I never realized the perfectly obvious fact that the Savior would be in favor or the multiple millions of child sacrifices that have been performed in these latter-days under the glorious banner of unlimited abortion rights, right up to the very moment of birth! If only the Savior were here today to set the callous church leaders straight with regard their backward, anti-progressive stand on abortion! With this realization, my faith in the love of God has increased exponentially!

[Pyreaux]

Or a Third Party. He rejected both major parties of his era (Democrats and Whigs), viewing party orthodoxy as corrupt and detrimental to liberty. 

I'm concerned about the timing and editorial intent of media commentary around Joseph Smith. Because Latter-day Saints have voted overwhelmingly Republican for several decades. When outlets like The Salt Lake Tribune's center-left commentators highlight "progressive" aspects of Joseph Smith, or any claim that "Joseph Smith would vote [Progressive / Conservative / Libertarian] today" is an attempt to weaponize a religious leader for political leverage.

If a modern Progressive claims him: They must ignore his patriarchal family structure, divine-right leadership model, rejection of secular pluralism, and views regarding colonization.

If a modern Conservative claims him: They must ignore his advocacy for a national bank, federal override of states' rights, prison reform, and collective economic systems.

Joseph Smith’s political thought was a pragmatic response to persecution, aimed at establishing a distinct political and divine order outside the standard American two-party framework.

Edited yesterday at 12:39 AM by Pyreaux

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Thank you for this! For some reason I never realized the perfectly obvious fact that the Savior would be in favor or the multiple millions of child sacrifices that have been performed in these latter-days under the glorious banner of unlimited abortion rights, right up to the very moment of birth! If only the Savior were here today to set the callous church leaders straight with regard their backward, anti-progressive stand on abortion! With this realization, my faith in the love of God has increased exponentially!

Rude

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Rude

teddyaware clearly hasn't ever read the OT or BOM, God is killing his own children, why leave to others what you can do for yourself I guess

[Notatbm]

He would be sharing a cell with this guy. 14 will get you fifty. 

[JLHPROF]

Depends on how each term is being defined.

In his day he was progressive compared to the values of his day. If he kept all the same views today he'd be conservative.

[Pyreaux]

 

56 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

He would be sharing a cell with this guy. 14 will get you fifty. 

Ever an inflammatory and historically inaccurate bully. Dispite being a religious sealing, even marrying a 14-year-old and having sex with a 14-year-old are legally different issues. Whether a marriage itself would be illegal, and whether sexual activity would constitute a crime, depends on the applicable state's laws and the circumstances. The historical record says he didn't have any marital relations with any 14-year-old. So as always, you don't know what you are talking about.

Edited yesterday at 03:46 AM by Pyreaux

[Kenngo1969]

As President Oaks once said, paraphrasing, there is some truth in Conservatism, some truth in Liberalism, but no salvation in any of them.  When Christ returns, He will do so as Sovereign King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and what He says, goes.   Which, to me, indicates that He might have to ask anyone who is too tightly wedded to a particular political ideology (whatever space one might claim on the political spectrum), "Will ye also go away?"  John 6:67.  I hope everyone here would answer as Peter did: "Lord, to whom shall we go?  Thou has the words of eternal life."  John 6:68.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

teddyaware clearly hasn't ever read the OT or BOM, God is killing his own children, why leave to others what you can do for yourself I guess

Compare the body counts of God and Satan in the Bible.

[The Nehor]

I suspect Joseph Smith would find all our political positions abhorrent. He would probably hold on to the political views he had then which definitely aren’t progressive by today’s standards and our current fad version of conservatism is ideologically anti-American Revolution so probably too conservative for him too.

[Notatbm]

10 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

 

Ever an inflammatory and historically inaccurate bully. Dispite being a religious sealing, even marrying a 14-year-old and having sex with a 14-year-old are legally different issues. Whether a marriage itself would be illegal, and whether sexual activity would constitute a crime, depends on the applicable state's laws and the circumstances. The historical record says he didn't have any marital relations with any 14-year-old. So as always, you don't know what you are talking about.

Yea keep believing he didn’t have sex with her. Why not, she was his wife. 
 

You also placed this scenario in today’s political landscape so today’s laws apply as well. He would be in prison for not only marrying a 14year old and having sex with her, he would be in prison for marrying other men’s wives. Politically, he would not survive with all the shenanigans he was up to. Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma. Praise to the man!

[Doctor Steuss]

Throwing caution to the wind, of the big red pop-up banner...

I don't think he had a political ideological purity that could be pigeon-holed into one or the other even at that time; and even if he did, it would be too difficult to dissect each component from its historical place and then place it neatly into a modern political category box.

That said, Joseph's and Rigdon's Mormon Reform Party was likely best categorized as center-left for the time.  That's what makes it sticky though, is that rascally "for the time."  It had flavors of Jeffersonian democracy, which were pretty radical and progressive at the time but now has a lot of elements that fit perfectly within the realm of modern conservatism.  Even the components of classical liberalism that he advocated can't be placed, as a whole, perfectly within on side of the modern political dichotomy.

Ultimately, I think at best (and even then, it requires a lot of guesswork and assumptions) you can take a given position or given aspect in a given moment, and mayyyyyybeeeee put it into the modern spectrum; but, placing him on the modern spectrum as a whole is an act in futility, that I think is ultimately more of a reflection of the person doing the categorizing than of Joseph himself.

[MustardSeed]

It’s hard for him to fathom, but not everybody is black-and-white

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Yea keep believing he didn’t have sex with her. Why not, she was his wife. 

You also placed this scenario in today’s political landscape so today’s laws apply as well. He would be in prison for not only marrying a 14year old and having sex with her, he would be in prison for marrying other men’s wives. Politically, he would not survive with all the shenanigans he was up to. Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma. Praise to the man!

You only pretend to care about the truth if you plan to just ignore Helen Mar Kimball’s own testimony regarding her relationship with Joseph Smith. You try to establish fake facts when the historical record does not establish that claim. 

And Joseph Smith and Emma were sealed on May 28, 1843.

Get the history right before lecturing anyone else about it.

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As President Oaks once said, paraphrasing, there is some truth in Conservatism, some truth in Liberalism, but no salvation in any of them.  When Christ returns, He will do so as Sovereign King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and what He says, goes.   Which, to me, indicates that He might have to ask anyone who is too tightly wedded to a particular political ideology (whatever space one might claim on the political spectrum), "Will ye also go away?"  John 6:67.  I hope everyone here would answer as Peter did: "Lord, to whom shall we go?  Thou has the words of eternal life."  John 6:68.

This is important stuff.  I think our personal political preferences, ideologies, outlook, etc. need to be substantially "downstream" from our discipleship, as otherwise allegiance to a political party or ideology might end up superseding the "weightier matters" that exist, or should exist, in our lives.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Notatbm]

48 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

You only pretend to care about the truth if you plan to just ignore Helen Mar Kimball’s own testimony regarding her relationship with Joseph Smith. You try to establish fake facts when the historical record does not establish that claim. 

And Joseph Smith and Emma were sealed on May 28, 1843.

Get the history right before lecturing anyone else about it.

Oh my bad. I forgot that no one ever lied back then… especially Joseph smith. 
 

for the record he wasn’t sealed to Emma until AFTER he married 22 other women all the while lying about it and breaking the law. So until he got those 22 marriages out of the way… Emma wasn’t sealed to him. Praise to the man. What a guy!

 

Joseph smith would be sharing a cell with Warren jeffs today. 

Edited 17 hours ago by Notatbm

[MustardSeed]

26 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Oh my bad. I forgot that no one ever lied back then… especially Joseph smith. 
 

for the record he wasn’t sealed to Emma until AFTER he married 22 other women all the while lying about it and breaking the law. So until he got those 22 marriages out of the way… Emma wasn’t sealed to him. Praise to the man. What a guy!

 

Joseph smith would be sharing a cell with Warren jeffs today. 

Well, we can’t necessarily know what decisions Joseph would’ve made in his personal life in today’s climate.  
The decisions I make today are very different than the decisions I made just 10 years ago. 

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Oh my bad. I forgot that no one ever lied back then… especially Joseph smith. 
 

for the record he wasn’t sealed to Emma until AFTER he married 22 other women all the while lying about it and breaking the law. So until he got those 22 marriages out of the way… Emma wasn’t sealed to him. Praise to the man. What a guy!

 

Joseph smith would be sharing a cell with Warren jeffs today. 

From a historical standpoint there is no reliable evidence that he had a husband/wife relationship with any underage girls. If he had lived long enough it sounds like his marriage to Helen Kimball would have been a normal marriage but all records point to them never being unchaperoned and their relationship never being more than on paper, so to speak.

I know that you value honesty, and I’m saying that sincerely.  This is one of those times where anyone who values accuracy will want to look into the historical record for themselves and not just repeat what they’ve heard in the past, especially if they’ve heard it from unreliable sources.  You said it yourself, people lie.  Especially when the lie justifies their biases or serves an agenda.

There’s plenty of other stuff that you can be mad at Joseph Smith and the church about, this just doesn’t happen to be a valid criticism.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Yea keep believing he didn’t have sex with her.

I am certainly willing to consider historical evidence of a sexual relationship, but I am not aware of any.  Can you help in this regard?

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Why not, she was his wife. 

In her reminiscences, autobiography, poetry, and later defenses of plural marriage, she never described sexual relations with Smith. Do you dispute this?  If so, please lay out your reasoning and evidence.

My understanding is that she characterized the sealing as “for eternity alone” and focused on its dynastic/spiritual purpose (linking the Kimball and Smith families and securing eternal blessings for her father’s household). After the sealing she continued living with her parents and attending school; she wrote about social restrictions (missing parties) rather than any intimate relationship. She was later married “for time” to Horace Whitney after Smith’s death.

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

You also placed this scenario in today’s political landscape so today’s laws apply as well.

They do?  Could you explain why and how laws existing in 2026 "apply" to Joseph Smith in the early 1840s?

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

He would be in prison for not only marrying a 14year old

Possibly, yes.

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

and having sex with her,

Again, I would be interested in what evidence you believe exists of a sexual relationship.

See also here:

Quote

Under Illinois law, enacted in 1833, only open cohabitation of a man and woman not married to each other was punishable by law. The Illinois Criminal Code provided that

Any man and woman who shall live together in an open state of adultery or fornication, or adultery and fornication, every such man and woman shall be indicted, and on conviction, shall be fined in any sum not exceeding two hundred dollars each, or imprisoned not exceeding six months. This offence shall be sufficiently proved by circumstances which raise the presumption of cohabitation and unlawful intimacy; and for a second offence, such man or woman shall be severely punished twice as much as the former punishment, and for the third offence, treble, and thus increasing the punishment for each succeeding offence: Provided, however, That it shall be in the power of the party or parties offending, to prevent or suspend the prosecution by their intermarriage, if such marriage can be legally solemnized, and upon the payment of the costs of such prosecution.21

The term “open” in this statute is a key element of this crime. The meaning of this term was then and still today is generally understood in law to cover conduct that is “notorious,” “exposed to public view,” or “visible,” and which is “not clandestine.”22 Joseph’s relationships with his plural wives did not meet this definition.

 

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

he would be in prison for marrying other men’s wives.

Possibly, yes.

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Politically, he would not survive with all the shenanigans he was up to.

Not sure what you mean here.

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma.

I think this is incorrect.  See here.  Per Richard L. Bushman, Joseph and Emma were sealed on May 28, 1843.  Bushman is a pretty solid historian, so I assume he has documentation.  Do you have contrary evidence?  That Joseph and Emma were never sealed?

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Praise to the man!

Not sure open mockery is helpful to the discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think this is incorrect.  See here.  Per Richard L. Bushman, Joseph and Emma were sealed on May 28, 1843.  Bushman is a pretty solid historian, so I assume he has documentation.  Do you have contrary evidence?  That Joseph and Emma were never sealed?

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

And Joseph Smith and Emma were sealed on May 28, 1843.

He is probably saying this because we have no actual documentation that a sealing ever occurred between Emma and Joseph.  In the journal on May 28, 1843, it says that Joseph was married.  It uses a cipher to hide the "was married".  But it doesn't mention who he was married to.  Several of the men who were also sealed that day and the next were monogamists so it is most likely that Joseph was sealed to Emma.

I like to bring this up when talking with people who say that Joseph didn't practice polygamy because there are no contemporary records of any of those sealings.

 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843/233 is the journal for that day

Edited 15 hours ago by webbles

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Yea keep believing he didn’t have sex with her. Why not, she was his wife. 

We know he didn't have sex with all of his wives.  Several of them stated so.  And if we look at the behavior of young brides with older men in Utah, it is extremely rare to find them having children until they are 18+.  And then when you look at the Temple Lot case where all the woman who testified all said they were "husband and wife in deed" and we find that Helen was not included, even though she was in town and a very vocal polygamist.  The evidence weighs pretty heavily towards Helen and Joseph not having sex.  There isn't any evidence towards them having sex and a ton of evidence away from them having sex.

Edited 15 hours ago by webbles

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

He is probably saying this because we have no actual documentation that a sealing ever occurred between Emma and Joseph. 

Seems like we do.  From Joseph's journal:

Quote

Sunday May 28. Clouds & rain.— cold.—

5 P.M.— adjournd council met in the upper Room. atten[d]ed to ordinances and counselled and prayed that James Adams. might be deliverd from his enemies454 who & O. P. [Orrin Porter] Rockwell.455 & the twelve be prospe[r]ed in collecting means to build the Nauvoo House456 <Joseph— & J[ames] Adams
[[were married]]457

From footnote 457:

Quote

TEXT: Transliteration from Taylor shorthand: “w-r m-r-r-d”. No contemporary record giving more details on these marriages has been found. However, the marriages of the following day suggest that JS and Adams were married for eternity to their respective wives Emma Smith and Harriet Denton Adams. 

I would be curious about @Notatbm's assessment of this item.

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

In the journal on May 28, 1843, it says that Joseph was married.  It uses a cipher to hide the "was married". 

The footnote characterizes “w-r m-r-r-d” as shorthand.  What makes you think it was a "cipher?"  It has a fairly clear phonetic correlation to "were married."  And what would the need be for a cipher about Joseph being sealed to Emma?

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

But it doesn't mention who he was married to.  Several of the men who were also sealed that day and the next were monogamists so it is most likely that Joseph was sealed to Emma.

I think the inference would need to be that Joseph and James were married to their respective wives (Emma and Harriet).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

she wrote about social restrictions (missing parties) rather than any intimate relationship.

Only some though and possibly only because of “blacklegs and certain ones of questionable character” attending them.  Joseph warning her father about them appeared to be to protect her*** (and her brother, though he weaseled permission from their father by claiming the money was committed) rather than socially isolated her from young men.  She had attended parties after her sealing in May 1843 and apparently continued even after being restricted from at least that one and possibly a series of dancing parties to do choir and theatre, so it seems unlikely it was because Joseph didn’t want her associating with other men as is sometimes implied.

This could have been Joseph concerned about Helen because of the sealing or it could have been him just telling a close friend who he knew loved and protected his daughter.  Helen focuses on her father’s motivation to protect her, not Joseph.

Quote

During the winter of 1843, there were plenty of parties and balls, and many were held at the Mansion. The last one that I attended there that winter, was on Christmas Eve. Some of the young gentlemen got up a series of dancing parties, to be held at the Mansion once a week. My brother William put his name down before asking father’s permission, and when questioned about it made him believe that he must pay the money for himself and lady, whether he went or not, and that he could not honorably withdraw from it. He carried the day, but I had to stay at home, as my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away from there, because of the blacklegs and certain ones of questionable character who attended there. His wife Emma had become the ruling spirit, and money had become her God. I did not betray William, but I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow him to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fetter me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did, and I really felt that it was too much to bear. It made the dull school still more dull, and like a wild bird I longed for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself a much abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur. I imagined that my happiness was all over, and brooded over the sad memories of sweet departed joys and all manner of future woes, which (by the by) were of short duration, my bump of hope being too large to admit of my remaining long under the clouds; besides my father was very kind and indulgent in other ways, and always took me with him, when mother could not go, and it was not a very long time before I became satisfied that I was blessed in being under the control of so good and wise a parent, who had taken counsel and thus saved me from evils, which some others in their youth and inexperience, were exposed to, though they thought no evil. Yet the busy tongue of scandal did not spare them.

A moral may be drawn from this truthful story. “Children obey thy parents,” etc. And also, “Have regard to thy name; for that shall continue with you above a thousand great treasures of gold.” “A good life hath but few days; but a good name endureth forever.”

The first New Year’s Eve after the Prophet moved into the Mansion, our choir, under the leadership of Stephen Goddard, to which I became a member some time previous, gave them a serenade.

We met at our usual place of practice, on the hill near the temple, and although the night was unfavorable, being dark and rainy, we, nothing daunted, started out between twelve and one o’clock, we struck up and sang the New Year’s hymn. The inmates were highly gratified, and the Prophet came out and invited us to come in; but being late we declined. After singing one or two anthems he pronounced his blessing upon the orchestra and choir, which repaid the brethren and sisters for all their trouble.

William Cahoon, John Pack, Stephen Hale and wives, William Pitt, William Clayton, Jacob Hutchinson, James Standing and many more, too numerous to mention, were members of the choir, and most of the brethren belonged to William Pitt’s Brass Band. We enjoyed together many happy seasons, though of short duration

*****

Quote

 In the spring of 1844, during the dramatic season, he with his wife and sister stayed with us, but my father was at home which made quite a difference. I was just at the age to enjoy such amusements, which made time pass very agreeably. Miss Adams was a fine young lady and very gifted as an actress, in fact was quite a star, though a new beginner like all the rest, with the exception of Lyne, he spent much of his time at our house, as they were old friends, and he was a “Mormon.” Mrs. Adams was a dignified and quite a distinguished looking woman, and made a fine appearance upon the stage, but she played only one night—took the part of the Countess in the “Orphan of Geneva,” and thought herself so disguised that no one would recognise her, but when she found that she was known she could not be prevailed upon to go on again, and as the play was to be repeated the next night, they were in a terrible dilemma, not knowing what to do as we had returned home, and it was then near midnight. One of them proposed my taking the part, (Adams or Lyne), and the women and all set in flattering and teasing me to take it. But I was a timid girl of fifteen and frightfully bashful, and the idea of taking so dignified a part was to my mind utterly absurd; having only been upon the stage in two plays, first as one of the virgins in “Pizarro” and another simple part, but all my excuses were useless and I was fairly pressed into service. Adams said encouragingly, “I’ll help you out,” and as Lyne was leaving he said, “Now study the part over good tonight, and then retire and sleep on it, and you’ll nearly know it in the morning”; which direction I followed, and having a quick memory was able to repeat every word at the rehearsal, but when before an audience I was so frightened that I remembered very little; my wits nearly deserted me, but Adams was true to his promise and by his readiness assisted me to recover from my confusion.

***”it was not a very long time before I became satisfied that I was blessed in being under the control of so Isomgood and wise a parent, who had taken counsel and thus saved me from evils, which some others in their youth and inexperience, were exposed to, though they thought no evil. Yet the busy tongue of scandal did not spare them.”

****AI says they moved in August 1843, so if accurate, that would have been around the same time as her “questionable characters” parties restriction.

https://rsc.byu.edu/womans-view/scenes-incidents-nauvoo

PS:  I wonder if putting the blame on Emma is unfair since she was the one who stopped the addition of a bar in order to increase income.