Millions Shall Know

[USU78]

The arrest warrant was not issued until after JS ordered the destruction of the Expositor. As for the charge of treason, I assumed it related to JS having used the militia to assist in the destruction of the Expositor. What evidence do you have the the treason charges were unrelated to the destruction of the Expositor?

I refer the learned JB to Zion in the Courts, where the legal machinations of the Missourianders and the successful Habeas Corpus petitions by JSJr to prevent his extradition to face the Missouri charges which led to his arrest and holding in Liberty, MO, and which formed the basis for the treason charges. The treason had nothing to do with the Expositor, as I understand that work and sources cited therein. It was the evasion of arrest and extradition through successive successful Habeas Corpus petitions in the Nauvoo Municipal Court.

The reason the Missouri lobby sought so long to have the Charter repealed is because ( a ) the Charter authorized the Nauvoo legion and ( b ) the grant of jurisdiction to the Nauvoo Municipal Court was arguably as great as the County Court, which led to the ability of a Nauvoo order to negate a county order on arrest for extradition.

USU "Nonlawyers always find such things confusing, but it's basically a turf war between County and City -- they go on yet today all over the Anglo-Saxon world" 78

[USU78]

Indeed "Praise to the Man". Ever noticed how the Anti's never want to discuss the "prophecies" fullfilled?

Pa Pa

Yer absolutely right, Pa. Things have gone a bit afield from the stated purpose of the thread.

"Millions shall know Brother Joseph again!"

Nobody's seriously challenged the assertion in the song, have they?

[Scott Lloyd]

JS married Fanny Agler circa 1833.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/02-FannyAlger.htm

I said the doctrine of plurality of wives had not yet been given to the Church. I never denied that Joseph and other leading Church leaders were secretly practicing it. The statement expressed the formal position of the Church. Given the rampant hostility at the time, it is perfectly understandable and excusable that the Church lleaders did not disclose the secret practice of plural marriage. And their refusal to do so does not disqualify Joseph as a martyr.

Hey, if it were me I would have renounced Christ, while having my fingers crossed. I have no interest in being a martyr. I cast no aspersions on those that share my desire for self preservation.

My quarrel with you is not about your casting aspersions on those who desire self preservation. It is about your denying that Joseph Smith was a martyr.

They were not merely guarded about saying anything else, they caused the destruction of a printing press to prevent the publication of facts bearing on the existence of this secret practice.

The Expositor was found to be printing distortions and slander and was thus declared a public nuisance.

[Alf O'Mega]

The Expositor was found to be printing distortions and slander. . . .

In your opinion, was this finding correct? If so, would you care to share few?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Really, I was under the impression that this statement was voted on, approved unanimously, and published as as part of the Doctrine and Covenants until 1876.

JS married Fanny Agler circa 1833.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/02-FannyAlger.htm

They were not merely guarded about saying anything else, they caused the destruction of a printing press to prevent the publication of facts bearing on the existence of this secret practice.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this point.

The only question I asked is if Dan had evidence to support his assertion about the motives of the mob. I made no assumptions, I took no position. I don't know if I can say this any clearer. I (admittedly) do not know why the mob gathered, stormed the jail, and killed JS. Dan may very well be right. I haven't said otherwise.

I am admittedly ignorant on this point, and on the events that occurred leading the exodus.

I understand the confusion now. You evidently believe Joseph Smith IS or at least WAS the Church, as you point to the sealing to Fanny Alger [which came a little later than 1833 by other accounts.] Joseph practicing plural marriage, to you, is equal to the church practicing plural marriage. On this point I must disagree with you.

Wow, so the Epositer didn't contain any wild speculations, rumors, or unsubstantiated stories? It was, as you assert, "FACT." Indisputable fact, the Nauvoo Expositer was all about the truth, there wasn't anything dishonest, misleading, or twisted out of shape in it it all; it was "FACT." I again see where the problem lies, and it is the same crime you accuse Peterson and others of, namely, looking only for evidence that supports your position. Thus, you unequivocally declare the Expositer to be FACT.

You are ignorant, but yet you know all about the REASONS the attack occurred, namely, polygamy, and destruction of the Expositer. I wonder how you assert these "FACTS" when within the same post admit ignorance on the point, AND the events leading to the exodus.

[Scott Lloyd]

In your opinion, was this finding correct?

Yes.

If so, would you care to share few?

No.

[Alf O'Mega]

If so, would you care to share few?

No.

Would it put you in an uncomfortable position if I explicitly called for references? Dirty trick, I know, but I'm genuinely curious.

[Scott Lloyd]

No.

Would it put you in an uncomfortable position if I explicitly called for references? Dirty trick, I know, but I'm genuinely curious.

I'm not uncomfortable.

I declined because I don't want to take this thread any further afield than has already been done.

And I'm not interested enough to go looking for a copy of the Expositor at the moment.

You strike me as an able enough researcher that you could probably find one yourself. Maybe even on line. And you are welcome to start your own thread about it. I may or may not contribute.

[Jaybear]

I refer the learned JB to Zion in the Courts, where the legal machinations of the Missourianders and the successful Habeas Corpus petitions by JSJr to prevent his extradition to face the Missouri charges which led to his arrest and holding in Liberty, MO, and which formed the basis for the treason charges. The treason had nothing to do with the Expositor, as I understand that work and sources cited therein. It was the evasion of arrest and extradition through successive successful Habeas Corpus petitions in the Nauvoo Municipal Court.

DO you have a specific quote from the book or other reference. I saw the book at Amazon.

While I don't doubt that JS was wanted in Missiouri for treason, on the issue of JS incarceration for treason, Wiki state:

On 25 June 1844, Joseph and Hyrum Smith, along with the other fifteen city council members and some friends, surrendered to Carthage constable David Bettisworth on the original charge of riot. Almost immediately Joseph and Hyrum were charged with treason against the state of Illinois for declaring martial law in Nauvoo, by a warrant founded upon the oaths of A. O. Norton and Augustine Spencer. At a preliminary hearing that afternoon the city council members were released on $500 bonds, pending later trial. The judge ordered Joseph and Hyrum Smith to be held in jail until they could be tried for treason, a capital offense.

This tells me that JS was charged for treason against the state of Illinois, not Missouri, arising from his declaration of marshall law. As I read it, the charge of treason didn't flow from the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, but from the use (or misuse) of the militia to declare martial law.

I don't think it was coincidental that this occurred shortly after the destruction of the press.

Very interesting stuff.

Frankly, it looked to me as if JS controlled the city counsel, the municipal court, and the militia. While a lynching is unacceptable, I can understand why the nonmormon neighbors were concerned by the emergence of a theocracy led by "God's Prophet," supported by a well armed militia.

[Alf O'Mega]

I'm not uncomfortable.

I declined because I don't want to take this thread any further afield than has already been done.

And I'm not interested enough to go looking for a copy of the Expositor at the moment.

Then I think the appropriate response would be to retract the claim.

You strike me as an able enough researcher that you could probably find one yourself. Maybe even on line. And you are welcome to start your own thread about it. I may or may not contribute.

I've read the Expositor, and it seemed to me that the most damaging things it printed were actually true.

[Scott Lloyd]

Frankly, it looked to me as if JS controlled the city counsel, the municipal court, and the militia. While a lynching is unacceptable, I can understand why the nonmormon neighbors were concerned by the emergence of a theocracy led by "God's Prophet," supported by a well armed militia.

Given that the Mormons had already been driven from two states and had suffered murder, arson, theft, widespread assaults, dispossession of homes and property, and had generally been deprived off civil liberties we today take for granted, can you understand why they would be motivated to create a civil and military stronghold -- not insular, by any means, for others were invited and welcomed to come make their home in Nauvoo -- but to ensure their survival as a distinctive religious body?

Then I think the appropriate response would be to retract the claim.

I've read the Expositor, and it seemed to me that the most damaging things it printed were actually true.

You're entitled to your opinion on either point.

And by the way, you can take the word "me" out of brackets now. I went back in and fixed my post.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Given that the Mormons had already been driven from two states and had suffered murder, arson, theft, widespread assaults, dispossession of homes and property, and had generally been deprived off civil liberties we today take for granted, can you understand why they would be motivated to create a civil and military stronghold -- not insular, by any means, for others were invited and welcomed to come make their home in Nauvoo -- but to ensure their survival as a distinctive religious body?

You're entitled to your opinion on either point.

I suppose the point of the Nauvoo Legion and the Charter itself have been overlooked, again, a result of overlooking the larger picture. The Church and Joseph wanted protection from lawlessness, which the got through completely legal means. Their charters allowed very similar rights to several other locations in the state at that time; go look it up, I'm not doing your homework for you on this one. I've done my research, you're welcome to do yours, jay, et al.

[Jaybear]

Wow, so the Epositer didn't contain any wild speculations, rumors, or unsubstantiated stories? It was, as you assert, "FACT." Indisputable fact, the Nauvoo Expositer was all about the truth, there wasn't anything dishonest, misleading, or twisted out of shape in it it all; it was "FACT." I again see where the problem lies, and it is the same crime you accuse Peterson and others of, namely, looking only for evidence that supports your position. Thus, you unequivocally declare the Expositer to be FACT.

You are ignorant, but yet you know all about the REASONS the attack occurred, namely, polygamy, and destruction of the Expositer. I wonder how you assert these "FACTS" when within the same post admit ignorance on the point, AND the events leading to the exodus.

Please don't distort what I said.

I didn't say that the Expositor was entirely truthful. I said it published facts bearing on this secret practice.

I didnt accuse Peterson of any crime. I just asked for evidence to support a factual claim.

I didnt say that I "know all about the REASONS the attack occurred" In fact, I said just the opposite. I said:

I (admittedly) do not know why the mob gathered, stormed the jail, and killed JS.

Let me know when you are prepared to engage ME in a discussion, and not a strawman.

[Alf O'Mega]

You're entitled to your opinion on either point.

We're both entitled to our opinions on these and other points. However, we are also both bound by board rules: "If you are asked for documentation or given a call for references you are required to provide it." So which will it be?

[Scott Lloyd]

We're both entitled to our opinions on these and other points. However, we are also both bound by board rules: "If you are asked for documentation or given a call for references you are required to provide it." So which will it be?

I observed that the Expositor had been found to be a public nuisance for printing distortions and slander. You asked if I agreed. I said yes. You asked if I cared to share examples. I declined on grounds of not wanting to derail the thread.

You said you've already read the Expositor. I mentioned that you are welcome to start your own thread on the subject of its content and that I may or may not participate.

If the above puts me in violation of the rules, go ahead and make your case to the moderators.

[Alf O'Mega]

If the above puts me in violation of the rules, go ahead and make your case to the moderators.

I wouldn't dream of it, Scott (you rebel, you).

[Jaybear]

Given that the Mormons had already been driven from two states and had suffered murder, arson, theft, widespread assaults, dispossession of homes and property, and had generally been deprived off civil liberties we today take for granted, can you understand why they would be motivated to create a civil and military stronghold -- not insular, by any means, for others were invited and welcomed to come make their home in Nauvoo -- but to ensure their survival as a distinctive religious body?

Yes I understand their motivation. As I said earlier, I am a big fan of self-preservation.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Please don't distort what I said.

I didn't say that the Expositor was entirely truthful. I said it published facts bearing on this secret practice.

I didnt accuse Peterson of any crime. I just asked for evidence to support a factual claim.

I didnt say that I "know all about the REASONS the attack occurred" In fact, I said just the opposite. I said:

Let me know when you are prepared to engage ME in a discussion, and not a strawman.

This is backpeddaling.

Throughout this thread you don't seem to know exactly what you believe. You are treating the discussion like a poker game, and your beliefs are your hand. Lay it out on the table and the confusion will likely go away. You construct a strawman and wonder why I attack it? It was constructed by your previous posts. You wont answer questions [such as Scott Lloyd's] but you insist on answers for yours. It's not worth debating with you, you're mind is made up. That's fine.

[torquate]

Regarding members of the mob thinking that killing Joseph ended mormonism: In the church's museum on Temple Square there is an artifact that was owned by one of the mob members (I think it was an animal horn or something--I am going to go again tomorrow to check it) and it has engraved on it the date of the murders and something to the effect of "The end of Mormonism". As I said, I will go and check it tomorrow. It has been there each time I have been to the museum, right before a letter that Vilate wrote to Heber about the martyrdom.

And now an interesting side note about the hymn.

Originally the lyrics read as follows:

Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins

Stain Illinois while the earth lauds his fame.

It is easy to see why that part was changed.

[Scott Lloyd]

Regarding members of the mob thinking that killing Joseph ended mormonism: In the church's museum on Temple Square there is an artifact that was owned by one of the mob members (I think it was an animal horn or something--I am going to go again tomorrow to check it) and it has engraved on it the date of the murders and something to the effect of "The end of Mormonism". As I said, I will go and check it tomorrow. It has been there each time I have been to the museum, right before a letter that Vilate wrote to Heber about the martyrdom.

And now an interesting side note about the hymn.

Originally the lyrics read as follows:

Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins

Stain Illinois while the earth lauds his fame.

It is easy to see why that part was changed.

I think the stain disappeared when the last guilty mobber or intransigent politician involved in persecution of the Mormons died or left the state.

But "plead unto heaven" is indeed far more poetic and meaningful than "stain Illinois." I agree, the alteration was a good one.

[Pahoran]

Well, I'm leaving in a few minutes. I'll be out of town through Sunday evening or thereabouts, without a computer. (I'm told, incidentally, that I'm using a sockpuppet to post up a storm on the Shades Obsession Board. Evidently I'm doing it unconsciously and unaware; we'll see if I can now continue doing so telepathically, as well.)

It seems that I made the notion up out of whole cloth that some of the anti-Mormons of 1844 expected the death of Joseph Smith to put an end to Mormonism and the Church. And, just like Fawn Brodie (a predecessor of mine in the art of Mopologist spin, or so it appears), I invented it in order to "promote faith" via cynical lying. I'll be curious to see what further evidence Gervin will be able to produce to show that this is the case.

Now Dan, you need to make allowances for Gervin.

It's only natural that he would assume that you are lying; like most people, and virtually all anti-Mormons, he assumes that others have the same level of honesty as he does.

But let us strip away the extreme bias that governs all his opinions, and look at what he has actually asserted: that if indeed Joseph's murderers did believe that they would be putting an end to Mormonism by murdering him, and if they did intend to bring about that result, and given that that intention has failed spectacularly, then this would tend to promote the faith.

And, as you have demonstrated, that was indeed their belief and intention.

Therefore, it is the truth that is faith-promoting. And it was Gervin who said that it would be.

Nice of him, wasn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[cdowis]

Whatever else one can say, Moroni's prophecy has definitely been fulfilled.

Elder Groberg gives an interesting story from his mission. He visited a very remote island, no electricity, and virtually no communication with the outside world.

He asked them various questions which showed they had almost no knowledge of the outside world -- president of the United States, about England, Europe, and other such basic questions.

He then asked about the Prophet Joseph Smith, and they immediately answered that he was a terrible and bad man, a deceiver, false prophet, etc etc. Groberg stated that Moroni's prophecy had literally been fulfilled on this remote island in the Pacific.